
Labour's immigration plans will close my care home
Dr Elizabeth Stephens owns and runs a care home in Lincoln. When I chatted to her about the government's latest immigration policy she was spitting nails.
Before Covid she employed four eastern Europeans out of a staff of 47, but they didn't return after the pandemic. Now 60-80% of her staff are either of Indian or African background. Without them, she explains, she wouldn't have a business at all. 'If we cannot sponsor visas or recruit overseas staff, we cannot run a care home,' she says.
Dr Stephens is not alone in that analysis. Dr Jane Townson OBE, chief executive of the Homecare Association agrees. She represents carers who look after people in their own homes, a sector that employs more people than care homes, and says: 'The government has pulled the rug out from under our feet. It feels like this is a kneejerk reaction to Reform's success in the local elections, and without a plan'
In the last two years 70,000 British carers have left the workforce and yet we know that by 2040 we will need another 540,000 additional care workers as the population ages. Already 25% of the care workforce are immigrants, and the industry estimates it will need 540,000 additional care workers by 2040 to meet rising demand.
Dr Townson is very doubtful that local British workers will turn up in anything like large enough numbers to fill that gap. 'It's really difficult,' she told me. 'Half of British applicants don't even turn up for interview, they just apply to keep getting benefits, they have no intention of turning up.'
But it is not just a matter of gaming the system. Unison's head of social care Gavin Edwards says, 'While hourly pay rates remain stuck just above the legal minimum and zero-hours contracts are commonplace, the care sector isn't an attractive career choice. People know they can earn more delivering parcels or making coffees on the high street'.
Another problem is that the workforce that is currently available mostly lives in the wrong part of the country. There are lots of people looking for work in London and other big cities, but much less in the countryside, where people retire.
Read more: Money alone will not fix the NHS
Foreign workers are more likely to go where the work is, and Dr Townson says there are other reasons to prefer them too: 'Immigrants are excellent, better educated than our domestic workers, many have nursing qualifications, they work longer hours – a minimum of 37.5 hours and many work more.'
But Yvette Cooper doesn't seem to care about any of that. In the panic to try to bring down immigration numbers she is now claiming that it is 'time to end that care worker recruitment from abroad'.
Yet the home secretary must know full well that even with huge levels of foreign recruitment the care sector is currently short of 131,000 workers. Firms will now have to try to recruit British nationals, although the government will not be drawn on who is going to find the money necessary to attract British workers into the sector.
In a world where British people were willing to do the work at the current pay rate, there would be no need to use immigrants. But they are not, so higher pay and better conditions are the only way the sector can try to attract more British staff. In return, this means either higher fees for elderly patients or increased costs for local government, which funds so much care and is a bill that will finally have to be paid by HM Treasury.
Gavin Edwards says: 'Better-paid domestic workforce in social care is vital, as is a proper career structure. But none of this will happen overnight. Until it does, the sector will be stuck in a doom-loop of staffing shortages. It's only the recruitment of workers from overseas that's stopped the system from falling over.'
Elizabeth Stephens knows this only too well. She has tried recruiting British staff, but they complain about the pay, the hours and the work. Of three apprentices she recruited, two dropped out, because they didn't like the hours. Elizabeth also believes immigrants work harder, have a fantastic attendance record and are very compassionate.
She would recruit more locals but 'British people just do not apply for the jobs'. Even paying more won't attract British workers Elizabeth claims because 'they just do not want to do the work', while the government's claim that it will just train more British care workers to fill the gaps runs against all the evidence.
The government's policy of ending the recruitment of foreign care workers is therefore likely to cause a deepening crisis in a care sector which is already struggling, and it will also almost certainly cost more in the long term too.
The policy is stupid and it is also short sighted. The care sector is the poor relative of the NHS, but an underappreciated one. The NHS constantly finds that its beds are occupied by elderly patients who do not really need to be there – they should be in care instead.
Better care would release thousands of beds and cost much less than keeping people in hospitals too. It's therefore baffling to see the government going against the facts, the evidence and the NHS's best interest by removing access to the very workers who would care for the people filling those care beds.
And all, it seems, for a panicked reaction to Reform's surge in the polls – even though attempting to outflank Nigel Farage and co on immigration is a fool's errand. The government should have made the case for immigration to help out the health and care sectors – an Ipsos poll just before last year's election showed that 51% of people are only too happy to recruit foreign doctors or nurses into the NHS and 42% have no problem with immigrant care home workers.
Instead, we are pushing a creaking care system to the point of no return just for a cheap headline. It is careless and callous.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Hidden Alexander Isak transfer clause that could complicate Liverpool move further
Alexander Isak has broken his silence after becoming embroiled in a transfer saga involving Liverpool, with Newcastle issuing a response, though one contractual clause could further complicate things Newcastle's Alexander Isak has broken his silence as his Liverpool transfer saga continues. Though a clause in the 25-year-old's contract concerning former club Real Sociedad could throw yet another spanner into the works. The Swedish striker made it clear last month that he wanted to explore his options away from St James' Park, and while the Reds did submit a £110million bid, this fell well below Newcastle's valuation. A stalemate has since been met, with Isak refusing to play for the club, and the Magpies insisting he is not for sale and will remain on Tyneside unless an adequate offer is made. On Tuesday, Isak spoke for the first time since the drama unfolded, explaining his absence from the Professional Footballers' Association's awards gala. Newcastle issued a telling reply, as the possibility of an agreement with Liverpool remains up in the air, though a sell-on clause inserted into the 25-year-old's contract could further complicate matters. Isak's statement was damning. In light of this increasingly noxious disagreement, the star striker, who has been training away from Newcastle's first team, claimed promises had been broken. "I've kept quiet for a long time while others have spoken," wrote Isak. "That silence has allowed people to push their own version of events, even though they know it doesn't reflect what was really said and agreed behind closed doors. "The reality is that promises were made and the club has known my position for a long time. To now act as if these issues are only emerging is misleading. "When promises are broken and trust is lost, the relationship can't continue. That's where things are for me right now - and why change is in the best interests of everyone, not just myself." Yet, a deal for Isak would be complicated. The Reds' £110m package was swiftly rebuked, and it is thought that Isak is valued at a whopping £150m. Nevertheless, it seems a British record transfer fee is what it would take to secure his services. Adding further complications is a sell-on clause that was inserted in Isak's deal when he moved to Newcastle from Real Sociedad in 2022. The Swede arrived in England for a fee of £63m, and a 10 per cent capital gains clause was attached to his deal, as per the Athletic. This clause would see the Spanish side receive that percentage of any profits made from the future sale of Isak. Should he be sold for £150m, for example, this would see a sum of £8.7m go to Spain. Such a stipulation could cause Newcastle to demand an even higher price for Isak, and Liverpool could have to pay extra to ensure the Magpies receive a final sum they are satisfied with. As their reply to Isak's statement suggests, Newcastle themselves do not see a deal being completed this window. It read: "We are clear in response that Alex remains under contract and that no commitment has ever been made by a club official that Alex can leave Newcastle United this summer. We want to keep our best players, but we also understand players have their own wishes and we listen to their views. "As explained to Alex and his representatives, we must always take into consideration the best interests of Newcastle United, the team and our supporters in all decisions and we have been clear that the conditions of a sale this summer have not transpired. "We do not foresee those conditions being met. This is a proud football club with proud traditions and we strive to retain our family feel. Alex remains part of our family and will be welcomed back when he is ready to rejoin his team-mates." Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.


Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The traditional British dessert that could go EXTINCT – thanks to climate change
It's the traditional British staple that combines sweet shortcrust pastry, a layer of raspberry jam and a frangipane filling. But the humble Bakewell tart could soon go extinct – thanks to climate change, experts have warned. There is a global shortage of almonds – the key ingredient that gives the dessert its sweet flavour – thanks to rising temperatures in popular growing regions. In California, where 80 per cent of the world's almond nuts are farmed, climate change–related extreme heat and poor water quality have led to soaring production costs and reduced yields. Trade journal Bakery & Snacks said bakers are scrambling to find alternatives to the naturally sweet and smooth nut. In a blog post, they wrote: 'For decades, almonds have been a dependable ingredient for bakers – from the frangipane in a cherry Bakewell to the marzipan in a stollen – but in 2025 that certainty is wavering. 'Prices are unstable, supply is uneven, and the official outlook is being questioned.' Manufacturers said the current situation is pivotal as the dish is of such cultural significance. 'The Cherry Bakewell isn't just a cake – it's a part of British culture,' Kirsty Matthews, brand manager at ingredient specialist Macphie, said. 'People have a fixed idea about how it should taste, how it should feel when you bite into it. 'That's what makes changing the ingredient list so sensitive.' The situation is so worrying that firms have even started developing nut–free flavourings and seeds to replace the iconic almond. 'When an ingredient like the almond wobbles, heritage products feel the impact first,' the Bakery & Snacks post reads. 'The cherry Bakewell is one of Britain's best–loved bakes – shortcrust pastry, a layer of jam, almond–rich frangipane, smooth icing and a bright glacé cherry on top.' Its roots go back to the early 1800s in Bakewell, Derbyshire, where a cook at the White Horse Inn is said to have accidentally created a softer Bakewell pudding. The treat was later given a crispier base, and from the mid–20th century it was decorated with a single cherry on top, popularised by top–selling bakers Mr Kipling. Ms Matthews insisted her firm's new nut–free 'Cherry Bakewell Sensation' offered the same enjoyment and could be enjoyed by those with nut allergies. She said: 'We can still give you the experience you expect, the same aroma, the same balance of flavours, the same indulgence, but with an ingredient list that works in today's supply climate.' Almond orchards are thirsty permanent crops that need water year–round – a struggle when regions experience drought and intensifying heat waves. California almond production grew from 168 million kg in 1995 to a record 1.4 billion kg in 2020, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. However, this has started to dip again in recent years. A report from California Almonds, released in December reads: 'While demand is looking up, almond acreage is declining. 'On trend with recent years, the 2024 Land IQ Acreage Report indicated that non–bearing and total almond acreage decreased for the third year in a row. 'Regionally, less almonds are being harvested from the South Valley, which is typically where the strongest yields have been, and production is shifting north.' How are almonds grown? Almonds are seeds harvested from the fruit of almond trees, which are native to the Mediterranean. The trees can grow up to 15ft tall and are known for their aromatic, white-pink flowers. They grow a soft fruit called a drupe, which contains a small pit in the middle that is exposed when the fleshy exterior dries and splits open. The seed within the pit is harvested by a machine and prepared for consumption. Industrial producers plant almond trees in large orchards where climates are hot and dry in the summer and cool and moist in the winter. Some 80 per cent of the world's almond supply is produced in California's farmlands, while the other 20 per cent is found in Mediterranean countries like Spain and Italy. Contrary to popular belief, almonds are not technically true nuts. Instead, they are classified as drupes.


New Statesman
43 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Exclusive poll: Labour voters are rallying to Jeremy Corbyn
Photo by. The new left-wing party in the process of being launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana might lack a name, a leader, and a policy platform beyond tackling 'the crises in our society with a mass redistribution of wealth and power' and 'campaigning for the only path to peace: a free and independent Palestine'. What it doesn't lack is potential supporters. New polling by Ipsos, seen exclusively by the New Statesman, finds that one in three people who voted Labour in 2024 would consider voting for the new Corbyn-Sultana initiative. That figure rises to nearly half (46 per cent) among 2024 Labour voters who would consider voting for an alliance between this new party and the Greens. The new outfit says that over 700,000 people have already signed up on the 'Your Party' website to register their support. For context, Reform UK made national headlines by claiming to have surpassed the Conservatives' membership numbers by hitting 130,000 members last December. Of course, registering for Your Party is free, while there are fees for becoming actual members of political parties (£35 a year for Reform, £39 for the Conservatives, and £70.50 for Labour at the standard rate). But the scale of interest in the new venture is striking, even when virtually nothing is known about it six weeks after Sultana dramatically announced she was quitting Labour for good to set up some kind of alternative. The potential for a left-wing option for those dismayed by the direction Keir Starmer's government has taken in its first year has long been discussed. In June, before Sultana's announcement, George Eaton reported new polling from More In Common which suggested a 'new Corbyn-led party' would win 10 per cent of the vote. Nearly two months later, Ipsos finds that has doubled: 20 per cent of voters consider themselves very or fairly likely to back the Corbyn-Sultana offering, rising to 33 per cent among voters aged 16-34. (A reminder: under government plans the voting age will be lowered to 16 at the next general election.) The big question mark – other than the party's yet-to-be-determined name – is how it interacts with the Green Party. The Greens are spending the summer engaged in a furious leadership contest, with MP duo Ellie Chowns and Adrian Ramsay facing off against 'eco-populist' London Assembly Member Zack Polanski. (If you missed the debate between Polanski and Ramsay on the New Statesman podcast, check it out and watch the sparks fly.) As Megan Kenyon pointed out, Polanski has argued that 'the Greens should occupy a more progressive, populist space on the left in order to confront the infectious populism of Nigel Farage's Reform. He has called for a wealth tax, a better approach to net zero and a more robust left-wing position on immigration.' In vibe terms, that's very similar to the on offer from Corbyn and Sultana. Is there space on the left of British politics for two rival populist parties? Most pollsters and strategists are sceptical, which is why there has been so much talk of some kind of pact or alliance – informal or otherwise – between the two to avoid splitting the vote. The Ipsos polling finds that, while the public on the whole are unsure on the merits of a pact, there is widespread support among people planning to vote for either option: 70 per cent of people who say they would vote for the new left-wing party (it really needs to decide on a name, if only for the sake of word counts) would back an alliance, as would 60 per cent of Green Party supporters. This isn't surprising: an alliance is the best way of avoiding the left-wing vote being split and wasting a whole load of votes. But given how antagonistic the Green leadership contest has already become, plus how much debate and confusion there is over who will lead the new left-wing party, negotiations for how such a pact might work are unlikely to be smooth. Insurgent populism works best when there is a one big-name charismatic leader (just ask Nigel Farage). Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Nonetheless, almost a third of Brits – 31 per cent – would consider voting for a united ticket. That rises to 51 per cent for voters aged 16-34. 'These figures show that a new left-wing party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana has the potential to shake up British politics,' says Keiran Pedley, director of politics at Ipsos. 'A significant number of younger people are at least prepared to consider voting for it and a majority of those aged under 35 say they would consider voting for some kind of alliance between the new party and the Greens. Clear policies around change, the NHS, poverty and wealth taxes could be popular.' That should sharpen minds in Downing Street: however chaotic the launch may have been, and whatever the fate of the last group of high-profile MPs who decided to start their own initiative (farewell, The Independent Group), the appetite for a challenger to the left of Labour is real. Related