Feel like a big but understated reason for why Labour are struggling so much in office is that they never seem to honestly appraise the economic consequences of their actions

Also important to note that the Home Office's *own figures* imply that care workers/dependents are a fiscal *benefit* in terms of the government's fiscal rules (and on every year for next 30 years). It is Mahmood who has a fiscal "black hole" to fill.

Right now govt is making up an obviously false “saving” to justify its imm, while ignoring the obviously true cost of that policy (treasury projections assume a level of net migration Home Sec opposes and which is unlikely to happen). And these ppl wonder why trust in politics is declining.

'Starmerism' is being unbothered by such trivial concerns as 'is that even true, though?' or even follow-up questions like 'is this lie even a useful one for us to tell?'

Absolutely right Again, as with Guardian article, Mahmood's reliance on false/deliberately misleading claims about her "earned settlement" proposals suggests that she knows she can't defend them on the merits, in principle or in practice.

This is pretty disgraceful.

Surprise! The Home Secretary has told another falsehood about her immigration plans

Important to seek clarity today on whether Home Office and No 10 will try to defend - or will now withdraw - a false+misleading claim applying settlement reforms to 2022-24 cohort saves £10bn Not just overspinning lifetime saving in 30 years time Gvt policy doesn't save maybe £8-10 billion of it!

My new @iza.org/LISER paper Control Without Credibility: Immigration to the UK Since the Brexit Referendum docs.iza.org/dp18419.pdf

At least this clarifies matters -if the government pursue Mahmood's proposals on "earned settlement"/ILR they will be explicitly allying themselves with Lam and Jenrick's ethnonationalist agenda.

While inequality remains high by both historical and global standards, it's not been rising for a while, so it's not really possible to blame it for the malaise of the last 18 years. I'm now more convinced then ever that low and stagnant growth is the main reason for our economic issues since 2008.

It is clear that the US and Israel plan to do to Iran what Israel has done to Gaza. There is something evil that is emerging. Europe can't just stand by while 90 million people are carpet bombed. Sanchez is right.

Are you a PhD student/postdoc/early-career scholar studying immigration? Want to spend time this summer in Mexico City w other immigration scholars? Apply to the UC Davis Global Migration Center summer school! I'll be there w 3 other amazing economists! globalmigration.ucdavis.edu/summer_school3

Once again, another mealy-mouthed half defence of the earned settlement proposals from someone who clearly hasn't read them/doesn't understand them. As Badenoch's letter (accurately) makes clear, there is only a modest difference in degree between Mahmood's proposals and Tory policy.

The problem with this argument from @chakrabortty.bsky.social is that - in contrast to the 1990s and 2000s when, as he says, things *did* get better - since 2010 we've had very low growth (and stable/falling inequality). www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

I don't think it is yet well understood on the frontbench, the backbench and the media that it reheats a tried & failed push on pull factors, more expensively on who is covered, with longer unsettlement

All these people will have various types of human rights claims to stay in the UK at various points. E.g. children born and living in the UK for 7+ years are entitled to status. They will need their parents. Similarly, long lawful residence = increased private life and qualification for status.

Guardian has now [after my complaint] corrected Mahmood's deliberate & incendiary false claim settlement gives immigrants "immediate access to welfare and social housing". Good for Gdn but embarrassing/shameful that Home Secretary deliberately misled the public for political gain like this.

On the one hand, a clearly deranged lunatic in the White House starting a dangerous illegal war on Iran with already-serious repercussions for the region and world... Or having a pop at Keir Starmer. You just knew which side the Right would come down on.

Just shows how much contempt Reform has for their own supporters. This is a policy that helps the kids of the wealthy educated liberal elites they claim to despise. And would harm the types of constituency they do well in.

The good kind of infighting. Creasy explaining very clearly why the policy sucks. More power to the backbenchers

Ironic Home Sec argues those oppose her settlement reforms must say how they would meet the fiscal costs 1. this £10 billion is fictitious + misleading - it is a cost in 30 years time - her reforms don't save that cost. 2. Yet Govt finds £5.4 billion negative hit of its immigration White Paper

Once again, another mealy-mouthed half defence of the earned settlement proposals from someone who clearly hasn't read them/doesn't understand them. As Badenoch's letter (accurately) makes clear, there is only a modest difference in degree between Mahmood's proposals and Tory policy.

There is a remarkable process of elite radicalisation - based on a cartoonish caricature of the Great British Public bsky.app/profile/sund...

Home Secretary speech: government version, with extensive political content redacted [but the relevant claims that the government will avoid a £10 billion fiscal cost of settlement] This is a rather bad example of policy-based evidence-making. www.gov.uk/government/s...

Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch writes to the Prime Minister to say that tripling and quadrupling settlement times to 15 and 20 years "are a good start but should go further" Settlement taking that long are very niche positions among the public - British Social Attitudes - but popular among elites

At least this clarifies matters -if the government pursue Mahmood's proposals on "earned settlement"/ILR they will be explicitly allying themselves with Lam and Jenrick's ethnonationalist agenda.

Update: now corrected - good for the Guardian for doing this so quickly bsky.app/profile/jdpo...

On settlement reforms, the key issue for MPs, select committees, thinktanks, media is to understand Home Secretary "£10 billion lifetime" taxpayer cost claim. - why £10 billion? Over what fiscal period? What is that per parliament/per year? - are people settling later? - how many leave?

Sunder is correct here - the headline figure is quite misleading Here are the profiles *over time* Both care workers *and* dependents are fiscally positive for their first *20 years*. Dependents are ultimately negative but only when old/sick/retired.

This. THIS. 1000 TIMES THIS.

It wasn't an experiment with open borders, as some new research will show on Monday

I think it is a major flaw of the Starmer/Mahmood government that, by a slogan presenting the 2019-24 Conservatives as "open borders" (numbers) they simply fail to understand the asylum/hotels failure (a botched *closed* to asylum experiment that failed to deter) so are repeating/reintroducing it

My new @iza.org/LISER paper Control Without Credibility: Immigration to the UK Since the Brexit Referendum docs.iza.org/dp18419.pdf

My thoughts on the Home Sec's immigration speech @ippr.org The Home Sec believes in control + compassion. It's the right ambition. But her plans may struggle to tackle small boat crossings and risk making integration harder. I make the case instead for a more focused approach to migration reform

"There is an alternative way forward: being True – not Blue – Labour. True Labour doesn’t fear those who are different. Instead, it demands everyone contribute their abilities to society – and works to unlock such skills." www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

And worth saying as a PSA I am proud to have joined @stellacreasy.bsky.social as Head of Campaigns.

Guardian has now [after my complaint] corrected Mahmood's deliberate & incendiary false claim settlement gives immigrants "immediate access to welfare and social housing". Good for Gdn but embarrassing/shameful that Home Secretary deliberately misled the public for political gain like this.

Mahmood asked this @ippr.org : "I will just repeat it is a system of economic migration so "We will look at individuals as individuals" [this has problems for spouses] "We will have to have bespoke routes for children"

ECFIN is here! Where is HMT??

Address is [email protected]

Peter Mandelson offered to take me clubbing in Riyadh

Tony Vaughan has a settlement rebellion in backbench signatures, double the welfare one. Neil Duncan-Jordan is another leading public advocate. Mahmood says 'transitional arrangements' are a consultation issue, where 200k responses were received, so decisions are "later this year" + "in due course"

"Her focus on so-called ‘pull-factors’ – an approach tried and tested without success by Conservative Home Secretaries before her – has been shown not to work." Our @sundersays.bsky.social on Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's speech today.

There has been some speculation about the size of a potential rebellion over the immigration proposals; Tony Vaughan's letter gives you a starting point-100 MPs opposing the changes in pretty strong terms The Govt's majority is 158. This puts us in the top 5 largest rebellions of all time already

Shabana Mahmood says Labour values & 1951 that refugee convention is protection should be temporary The practice of refugee protection in each of last 7 and a half decades has been that some have gone back & many have become British Here are their stories www.britishfuture.org/70-years-of-...

Here it is in black and white. But people don't need to read the refugee convention to want refugees to feel safe to build lives here, to integrate into society, to have jobs and homes. And they and their children can't do that if they're being threatened with deportation every few years.

..the fact Mahmood is using precisely the same sort of deliberately misleading language as Goodwin, Jenrick, Lam and Farage tells us all we need to know about how acceptable/fair she thinks her policies actually are to Guardian readers/the British public.

Argument here is that *now* it's actually popular/politically astute to deny people who have been working legally since 2022, mostly in care homes, the right to settle permanently (until maybe 2037). Just pure denial to justify a visibly failing political strategy

“I warn you not to be old, not to get sick…” If only Neil Kinnock knew that this would one day be referring to a Labour government (“a *Labour* government”)