Latest news with #DavidBull
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mass migration isn't Britain's lifeblood. It's an economic disaster
Within hours of stepping up as Reform chairman on Tuesday, David Bull triggered his first media controversy by remarking that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country – it always has been'. As popular as this sentiment is with Britain's politicians, it isn't true today and it certainly wasn't in the past. From 1066 through to the end of the Second World War, the population of Britain has been marked by relative stability. As a crude illustration, as late as 1951 the total non-White population of Great Britain was estimated at about 30,000 people, or about 0.07pc of the population. Today it's roughly 20pc, and on course to pass 50pc by the end of the century. In other words, the population changes induced by migration over the past seven decades are essentially without parallel in 1,000 years of British history. Even within this modern period, however, it's not quite right to say that migration has been Britain's lifeblood. It would be more accurate to say it's been the default policy of a state that keeps repeating its mistakes. A brief summary of the last 70 years might fairly cast British migration policy as a mixture of blunders, unintended consequences, and myopic pursuit of short-term objectives, right from the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948. As other writers have pointed out, while the narrative promoted today is 'you called and we came', internal government communications show that efforts were made to dissuade Caribbean migration in ways that wouldn't imperil the precarious bonds with Britain's colonies. Shortly after the ship's arrival, Britain adopted a sweeping nationality act that permitted anyone with a passport issued by the British government to enter the country. This act, while 'never intended to sanction a mass migration', combined with policies aimed at attracting workers in specific fields to create a mass inflow. Now, where have we heard that before? Then, as now, policy revolved around the needs of the NHS – newly established in 1948 – which had outstripped training capacity and needed workers. Then, as now, the role of migration in propping up a state approach to healthcare which would otherwise have failed was indispensable. But while important to the health service, the proportion of total migration accounted for by this demand was relatively small. By 1958, 210,000 non-white Commonwealth migrants were living in the UK. In the same year, of 8,272 junior doctors in Great Britain 3,408 had been born elsewhere. Other figures, frustratingly only for 1965, suggest that there were about 5,000 Jamaican nurses and other workers staffing hospitals. Combine these figures, and you get an estimate of about 4pc of the new population working in the NHS. Allow for dependents and missing data, and you might hit 10pc. Either way, to claim that the entirety of mass migration was justified by the NHS was well short of the mark. Similarly, a narrative of labour shortages was constructed that took as granted a nationalised, unionised economy with rife overmanning, built to obtain full employment. Comparisons of vacancy lists to unemployment naturally resulted in the conclusion that labour was needed; the unwillingness of the Government to relax its grip on the economy or exchange rates meant that other routes to adjustment were difficult to follow. In other words, migration in the post-war period was in part essential to the state's ability to carry out its plans, and in other part an unintended consequence of those efforts. By 1962, the Government was taking steps to restrain the inflow, wary of the scale of the political backlash it had triggered. Usually, history doesn't repeat itself. Westminster, however, is gifted with a wonderful form of amnesia, and has managed to do so not once but twice. First we had the New Labour loosening of migration policy in pursuit of ill-defined fiscal goals, alongside an unwillingness to restrict movement for newly joined EU member states. Predictions that 13,000 workers a year would arrive from Eastern Europe turned out to be off by a few thousand percentage points, and eventually popular unrest again led to legal changes, this time in the form of Brexit. Yet almost the moment Boris Johnson took office he set about repeating the mistakes of his predecessors, implementing the greatest liberalisation of Britain's borders in decades. The reasoning is almost painful to read: worries over shortages of workers even as the ranks of the economically inactive swelled, issues with pay in care homes downstream of government cuts to local authority budgets, the need to prop up a university sector which had seen tuition fees frozen, the NHS trotted out as the symbolic argument for migration when just 3pc of the 1.2m inflow in 2022 consisted of doctors and nurses. And again, following vehement expressions of popular dissatisfaction, we find ourselves with a government promising long overdue action, and an opposition seeking to capitalise on this sentiment. There is a limit to how many times a country can repeat a mistake without doing lasting damage. Research from the Office for Budget Responsibility has made perfectly clear that staying on our current course is unaffordable. Without reforms to Indefinite Leave to Remain, the care worker element of migration from 2021 to 2024 could cost the exchequer a lifetime sum of £61bn to £84bn on its own. The sheer size of the failure means that it must be at least partly undone, and Labour has made some noises about doing so. But it would be a mistake to assume that everything before 2020 was good. Previous waves of migration have amply demonstrated how selecting the wrong migrants can lead to costs that linger for generations. Despite large flows of recent migration – which tends to be fiscally positive in the years before workers age – it is still the case that black and Asian households in Britain receive more in state benefits than they pay in taxes, suggesting that previous migrants and their descendants may not have had the economic success we might have hoped for. Similarly, certain groups remain highly dependent on social housing. The grand experiment of the post-war era is over. The results are in. Immigration might be the lifeblood of the British state, but it is hard to argue that it's been an unequivocal success for the British people. The efforts to make it central to our shared understanding of history are less about genuine interest in our island story than they are justifying the mistakes of generations of politicians, the forging of a US-style narrative of a nation of immigrants for a very different country. This isn't a game Reform needs to play. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Mass migration isn't Britain's lifeblood. It's an economic disaster
Within hours of stepping up as Reform chairman on Tuesday, David Bull triggered his first media controversy by remarking that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country – it always has been'. As popular as this sentiment is with Britain's politicians, it isn't true today and it certainly wasn't in the past. From 1066 through to the end of the Second World War, the population of Britain has been marked by relative stability. As a crude illustration, as late as 1951 the total non-White population of Great Britain was estimated at about 30,000 people, or about 0.07pc of the population. Today it's roughly 20pc, and on course to pass 50pc by the end of the century. In other words, the population changes induced by migration over the past seven decades are essentially without parallel in 1,000 years of British history. Even within this modern period, however, it's not quite right to say that migration has been Britain's lifeblood. It would be more accurate to say it's been the default policy of a state that keeps repeating its mistakes. A brief summary of the last 70 years might fairly cast British migration policy as a mixture of blunders, unintended consequences, and myopic pursuit of short-term objectives, right from the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948. As other writers have pointed out, while the narrative promoted today is 'you called and we came', internal government communications show that efforts were made to dissuade Caribbean migration in ways that wouldn't imperil the precarious bonds with Britain's colonies. Shortly after the ship's arrival, Britain adopted a sweeping nationality act that permitted anyone with a passport issued by the British government to enter the country. This act, while 'never intended to sanction a mass migration', combined with policies aimed at attracting workers in specific fields to create a mass inflow. Now, where have we heard that before?
Telegraph
a day ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Reform was meant to be the party you can trust on immigration. So what on earth is going on?
Quick quiz. During an interview with ITV News on Tuesday, which Labour Left-winger said the following words? 'Immigration is the lifeblood of this country. It always has been.' Did you get it? Probably not, because it was a trick question. The person who made that impeccably progressive statement is not a Labour Left-winger. Or even a Labour centrist. He is in fact Dr David Bull: none other than the brand new chairman of Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Seriously. That's what he said. And then, during another interview later that day, Dr Bull said something just as extraordinary. 'We are,' he informed viewers of GB News, 'an island of immigrants'. Well, yes, I suppose we are, in the year 2025, after three decades of ever-rocketing immigration. But his choice of words was still startling. Because 'We are an island of immigrants' is a phrase normally deployed by open-border liberals, with the aim of promoting the false but politically convenient notion that the mass immigration of recent years is entirely normal, and therefore you have no right to object to it. Essentially, the message is: what are you moaning about, you silly gammon? Boudica was born in Afghanistan! Chaucer came from Eritrea! Henry VIII spent £4 million a day on asylum hotels! This is simply the way things have always been, so shut up and be grateful! In light of Dr Bull's comments, therefore, supporters of Reform are bound to be feeling a touch perplexed. Surely their party's chairman, of all people, should understand what Reform is meant to stand for. It's meant to offer a proper alternative to the Labour/Tory 'uniparty'. It's meant to reject smug metropolitan clichés about multiculturalism. And above all, it's meant to be the party you can trust on immigration. So what on earth is going on? It's one thing for Reform to move Left on nationalisation and welfare. But quite another for it to move Left on this. These days, even Sir Keir Starmer is trying to talk tough on border control. Yet, all of a sudden, the chairman of Reform sounds as if he's auditioning for a slot on Alastair Campbell's podcast. What will he suggest next? Rejoining the EU? Gary Lineker for Home Secretary? Make Greta Thunberg our ambassador to Israel? Still, at least one person on the Right is happy. Robert Jenrick, the former and no doubt future Tory leadership contender, seized on Dr Bull's words with glee. He clearly couldn't believe his luck. 'This is just nonsense,' he snorted. 'Not all immigration is equal. The unprecedented mass, unskilled migration we've experienced has been severely economically and culturally damaging... The idea that it is the 'lifeblood of our country', without which things would fall apart, couldn't be further from the truth.' Until not all that long ago, of course, Mr Jenrick was a member of the government that blithely enabled this 'unprecedented mass, unskilled migration' to reach record heights (from a net figure of 252,000 in 2010 to 906,000 in 2023). Which is, very obviously, a major reason why so many voters have abandoned the Tories for Reform. They're sick of being lied to. They're tired of being patronised. And they can't understand why, every month, £1 billion of their taxes should be spent on immigrants' benefits. As a result, they want drastic change. So when Reform promised a 'net zero' immigration policy – as in, one in, one out – these voters naturally thought that, at long last, here was a party they could believe in. A party that genuinely thought the same way they did. Nigel Farage, therefore, had better reassure these voters that this is still the case. Contrary to what the BBC or The Guardian may imagine, Reform's prospects of winning power will not be damaged by soap opera nonsense: internal tiffs, or politically incorrect posts on social media, or ex-chairman Zia Yusuf flouncing out in a huff only to slink back in two minutes later. Nor will they be damaged by the news that Dr Bull once described Mr Farage as an 'idiot', all of 11 years ago. There's only one thing that could halt Reform's surge. And that's the fear that, once safely ensconced in office, they'd be no different from the parties they'd usurped. Just the Tories, in a slightly lighter blue.
The Independent
a day ago
- Politics
- The Independent
New Reform chair David Bull calls for return of death penalty
The new chairman of Reform UK has said there is a 'very strong case' for the death penalty - 24 hours after Nigel Farage said he would not support its reintroduction. Dr David Bull, a former medical doctor, has said he would support the return of capital punishment for criminals such as Axel Rudakabana, who murdered three girls in a mass stabbing at a children's dance class in Southport. 'For those people, I think there is a very strong case that I would support the death penalty,' Dr Bull, who succeeded Zia Yusuf as Reform's chairman on Tuesday. He also added to a row in Reform's ranks over burqas, calling for the religious covering to be banned, saying 'I don't like seeing people in them'. He added: 'I don't like seeing people in burqas. I feel particularly in East London, where I live, it certainly has divided the community. We've got a whole swathes of people not even speaking English, which I just think is not acceptable.' Dr Bull was unveiled as Reform's chairman at a press conference at which Mr Farage sought to put the chaotic saga of Mr Yusuf's sudden and unexpected departure - and swift return just days later - behind him. Asked for his thoughts on the death penalty, Mr Farage has said it is an 'issue of conscience', likening it to the debate over assisted dying. He said: 'Personally, given there have been 500 quite serious miscarriages of justice in this country since the 1970s, I don't think I could ever support it. But I understand why others take a different view. 'I think it is quite interesting that the younger generation seem to increasingly support the death penalty… it will be back in the next decade as an issue of major national debate.' The death penalty was fully abolished in the UK in 1998. Asked about his view on the Reform row about banning burqas, he said he had wider concerns about face coverings. He added: 'Do I think in cultural terms the burqa fits in with the British way of life? Not really, no.' Former television presenter Dr Bull was announced as the party's chairman at a press conference in Westminster, as Mr Farage told reporters that his job would be to "give leadership" and "not to get involved with the admin". The appointment of Dr Bull, who previously presented Watchdog, Tomorrow's World and Most Haunted Live! comes after businessman Mr Yusuf resigned from the position last week following an internal row over the party's position on the burqa. Mr Yusuf said he was "hugely excited" that former MEP Dr Bull was taking the role. "This party is no longer a start-up," Mr Yusuf told reporters. "I think it's gone to a scale-up phase ... the reality is what we need now in a chairman is someone who is an incredible communicator, someone who's loved universally across the party ... someone who's going to I think do a better job than me at energising volunteers on the front line." "I wholeheartedly congratulate him and I know he's going to do an incredible job for us," he added. Mr Farage said Dr Bull would come to the chairman's role with "terrific verve, energy, enthusiasm". He described Dr Bull as a "terrific communicator" and that his "job is not to get involved with the admin, is not to get involved in the tech" but rather is to "give leadership to that volunteer army out there of people". Mr Farage also said it is "very good" that the new chairman has television experience, telling reporters that "message delivery and simplicity of message in politics is very important". Mr Yusuf returned to Reform over the weekend, just 48 hours after he quit, saying he had made an "error". His departure followed a row, in which he said the party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin's question to the prime minister about banning the burqa was "dumb".
The Independent
a day ago
- Health
- The Independent
Awkward moment new Reform UK chair David Bull is shown his tweet calling Nigel Farage an idiot
New Reform UK chairman David Bull was shown a previous tweet he posted calling Nigel Farage an 'idiot' during a live breakfast TV interview. Dr Bull appeared on Good Morning Britain on Wednesday morning (11 June), where host Susanna Reid showed him a tweet he made from 2014, calling Mr Farage an 'idiot', stating comments made by him were 'dangerous'. The tweet was over comments Mr Farage made about migrants with HIV. Dr Bull replaces Zia Yusuf, who resigned as Reform's chairman last week.
