Yet net migration figures stayed around 350k, which showed that either the politicians were not really engaging or were ineffective.

I also don't see how you can call the idea of restricting that "mad". Genuinely I don't. I understand you can disagree, I understand you can disagree with the premises it's based on. But how is it "mad"?

Your insistence on only dealing with the conservative government is also puzzling when we're talking about something that goes far further back.

>Yet net migration figures stayed around 350k, which showed that either the politicians were not really engaging or were ineffective.

Which, consulting Wikipedia’s list of countries by net migration, puts us below (amongst many others) Norway, Spain, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland and Portugal. So it’s not exactly an unreasonably large number of immigrants we’re talking about here. (Especially when you consider that our net migration figures are bogus, since international students are wrongly included in them. Around 135,000 non-EU students entered the UK in 2014, for example.)

>I also don't see how you can call the idea of restricting that "mad". Genuinely I don't. I understand you can disagree, I understand you can disagree with the premises it's based on. But how is it "mad"?

We have an aging population and an economy that was just coming out of a recession. It’s not difficult to see why we need more immigrants. They’re young and net contributors to the economy. The idea that we could make things any better by shutting everyone out is, simply, mad. Perhaps in the short term some unemployed British people could switch from being unemployed to doing very badly paid, very menial jobs that are currently being done by Polish people. The net cost to the economy would most likely be far greater than the cost of simply increasing their benefits, though.

>Your insistence on only dealing with the conservative government is also puzzling when we're talking about something that goes far further back.

I don’t think I am insisting on that (?) I’m not quite sure what you mean.

The British people considered it unreasonably large, for whatever reasons. They considered it important enough that after years of being ignored millions voted for UKIP or the Tories.

Again I'm not here to argue merits. What you have there is more justifications for ignoring the views of large sections of the electorate.

The rest of your argument is purely economic, as if that is or should be everything to everyone. And some of those points are arguable. I don't think that warrants calling people who disagree "mad".

>> I don’t think I am insisting on that (?) I’m not quite sure what you mean.

Oh just that I've been trying to make the point that politicians have been at this for decades and you bring up the conservatives as having tried to engage.

I don't think they really did, and by the time they did it was too late. Engagement should have been there from Blair onward.

>The British people considered it unreasonably large, for whatever reasons.

For no good reason. That's why I said that it's mad.

The economic argument is the only respectable argument against immigration, which is why I focused on it. The only other arguments against immigration that people put forward are racist and/or xenophobic.

More of the smug I'm afraid.

You don't think it's important so it's mad.

You don't agree with other arguments so they're racist.

Ok, so what is an argument against current levels of immigration to the UK that is neither racist, xenophobic, nor based primarily on economic considerations?

Most EU immigration is to London and the South East, somewhere that already feels like it's creaking at the seems and overcrowded.

We could start a massive programme of building houses and infrastructure, but that would further change the face of the country. Limiting immigration would alleviate some of the pressure.

That's just one off the top of my head.

Remember, the point made in this article is not that you have to agree. The point is that calling people mad and shouting them down as racist is toxic to politics and drives people away.

--edit--

I also find it strange when people bring up racism in the context of limiting migration from the EU - a region primarily peopled by white Europeans.

>Most EU immigration is to London and the South East, somewhere that already feels like it's creaking at the seems and overcrowded.

> Limiting immigration would alleviate some of the pressure.

First of all, housing is an economic issue.

Second, London voted overwhelmingly for remain. I live in London. No-one here seriously thinks that London’s housing crisis can be solved by stopping immigration. Nor did the country vote Leave because people in the North were particularly interested in solving London’s housing crisis.

Third, London out of all areas of the UK would be harmed the most by greater restrictions on immigration, and the vast majority of the people who live here know that.

>I also find it strange when people bring up racism in the context of limiting migration from the EU - a region primarily peopled by white Europeans.

Actually I was careful to say “racist and/or xenophobic” in anticipation of this kind of pedantry, but I guess I needn’t have bothered. The current climate is such that even Polish people aren’t considered sufficiently Anglo-Saxon to be entitled to live here!

That doesn't tell you that motivations are something other than race, then?

None are so blind as those who will not see.

I wasn't only talking about housing provision, I was talking about housing in terms of changing the face of the country and increasing urbanisation.

I said London and the South East, not just London, and there were Brexit voters in London, approximately 3.5 million of them.

But at least we're engaging now, rather than using terms like "mad"

> I was talking about housing in terms of changing the face of the country and increasing urbanisation.

"Changing the face of the country" just means "there are too many brown people and foreigners here".

I meant it as "building on the greenbelt" and more people living in apartments rather than houses.

But if you're determined to see racism everywhere I guess that's up to you.

I asked for an argument against current levels of immigration that was neither based primarily on economic considerations nor racist/xenophobic. I really don't think there is any such argument. Unless you're really saying that people are opposed to immigration because they're worried about houses being built on the greenbelt.

Overcrowding of the country is a valid concern, for more than purely economic reasons, the south east is one of the nost densely populated parts of Europe already.

As I say, if you want to see racism everywhere, and if you presume that the economic arguments are all won then fine, you just carry on shouting everyone down as mad and racist, and watch as your political viewpoints fail to gain traction over and over again.

Again, I'm not really here to argue the merits of Brexit or Trump, I voted for neither. But I am taking great delight in the frustration of those who hector, judge and shut down all discussion, shouting loudly about virtue while in fact practising all the bigotry they claim to despise.

Ah yes, "overcrowded". Like the posh restaurant that’s “fully booked”, or the country club that’s “not accepting any new members at the moment”.

If people were really worried about overcrowding, they’d be advocating for a one child per couple policy, not trying to reduce already rather moderate migration figures.

Now that is some fucked up thinking. Deeply fucked up.

Firstly, natural population growth in the UK is at around 150k per year, under half the net migration figure. Secondly, are you kidding me? People should favour continuing migration pver having their own children?

WOW. Are you even human?

The 300k net migration figure is bogus, as I already explained. The effect of natural population growth and immigration on the size of the population is roughly equal (http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings...), and natural population growth could be cut much more than immigration. You're illustrating perfectly that people don't really care about "overcrowding" at all. If they did, they wouldn't find the idea of limiting natural population growth outrageous. My reference to a one child policy was hyperbolic, but more funding for family planning would probably do the job.

Family planning, to allow people to choose, is a far, far different proposition from the one you put forward.

In order to limit population growth you think people should stop having kids in order to be better able to play host to newcomers.

It's a position almost beyond parody and so far out of touch with human wants and needs. I repeat - are you human?

Your figures are interesting but not conclusive, over half of population growth between 1991 and 2014 was due to migration. The latter years of that period saw far higher rates than the early and middle years, and it continues to be over 300k pa, according to the ONS.

Regardless, I'll say again, you're not talking to a die hard brexiter or Trump supporter. I voted to stay in the EU, for a start.

You're talking to someone who thinks that the bigotry of calling anyone that disagrees with you a racist is political poison, and that it will continue to set back progressive politics.

>In order to limit population growth you think people should stop having kids in order to be better able to play host to newcomers.

I don't want to limit population growth in the first place. You're the one who was suggesting that it's a problem.

But someone who really did want to limit population growth would obviously be interested in policies that would reduce the number of births. So, at minimum, they'd support lots of extra funding for teen sex education and family planning, since a significant number of births are unplanned. But of course we don't hear a peep about that -- only about immigration.