Interesting Duncin.
In each case, Britons tend to choose the economically beneficial trade off. Six in ten opt for getting enough workers in areas with skills shortages over reducing legal migration; 59% likewise prioritised attracting the “best and brightest” to the UK; 52% did so for “improving the UK economy”; and 41% preferred to increase the numbers of people in the UK paying tax (higher than the 30% taking the opposite view that reducing legal migration is the higher priority).”
Made me think of this -
Some anti-immigration activists will admit they prefer the idea of gradual economic decay to solving the population problem through migration, but no government can realistically let standards of living go into permanent decline. Voters may worry about immigration, but that doesn’t mean they won’t blame the government if they can’t pay their bills and there is no one to look after their ageing parents.
…
Even countries with radical right governments are attempting the same strategy. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni has pushed EU colleagues to go further on reducing irregular migration, while quietly pushing through two increases in the number of visas available for non-EU workers (alongside already high levels of migration from eastern Europe). Closer to home, the new Reform administration in Kent recently wrote to the home secretary complaining that new rules preventing care homes from hiring from abroad would “leave providers on a cliff edge”. In opposition, it is easy to use immigrants as a punching bag but, when governing, the trade-offs become more apparent.”
https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/sam-freedman-demonising-migrants-wont-fill-jobs-or-boost-falling-populations