Britain needs millions more immigrants to reduce strain of ageing population

[Dave225]

 

 

The title of this Post is taken from an article appearing in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph. A link is attached here

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10185342/Britain-needs-millions-more-immigrants-to-reduce-strain-of-ageing-population.html

 

Reading the article and you can see it has been compiled by an accounting person, or at least I think so. It does state logically that if we increase the number of workers in the UK by 140000 immigrants per annum then the ability to support an ageing population will be improved. Sounds logical, increase the workers and therefore decrease the relative burden for each old person. However there are caveats that are to my mind ignored.

 

It assumes that all immigrants will be young workers putting revenues back into the country. That from experience does not appear sound. If it was so, why are so many immigrants currently receiving huge benefits sums? Is every immigrant of young age? Why do they bring elderly dependents? It also ignores why so many of our indigenous young people are basically fleeing the country and of course exacerbating the ratio of young to old. These are usually the ones with qualifications that we need. Why are our young leaving when other nations young are flooding in? I suspect the answer is that all of them are looking to improve their current ‘lot’ in life. If you are in a dead beat country with no hope then moving may offer a better chance. Of course by dead beat country do I refer to the UK or the source countries of our immigrants?? Therein lies the nub of the problem. If the Uk was more supportive of its own young then they would not wish to leave and if they feel life owes them a living, then it needs to be addressed so they see things differently. If they also dis-encouraged others to arrive then there would be more opportunities for the locals. Sounds like a Party Political Broadcast for UKIP I know, but there is logic in it I feel. If we did after that need more workers then allow controlled entry, but to only those that will actually contribute to the economy of the UK. Why throw a Brit on the scrapheap to give a job to a Pole for example. Oh I forgot, the Brits do not want to work and the Poles do. Yes, we have all heard that one but in real life it does not hold water. If the Poles were so brilliant why is their country in such a mess it needs the biggest handouts in the EU. Just a thought. I do not know about your areas but here in Edinburgh the Poles seem to target shops and cafes as labour sources, not exactly rocket science that can only be done by specialists. Similarly the Romanians and the Bulgarians are in such wonderful economic shape that they will not wish to come to the UK for free benefits? I wonder if that is why Germany has just woken up to the fact they have nearly half a million Romanians living and claiming benefits in Germany. Child benefit has become the major source of income to them. Of course it would never happen here.

 

The article also mentions the strains on our healthcare system from the elderly, which is true, but it ignores the health tourism that is sucking millions out of the system. It also ignores the fact that Councils up and down the UK have been so generous with taxpayers money on useless schemes or salaries that they are cutting elderly care as fast as they can, along with everything else that may be useful to society. The NHS has been shown to have squandered enough money to solve all the problems, but then again, no one is to blame. Surely one answer is not to increase the number of users of the health system by immigration, but to re-direct the resources we have to where they need to be, and in the process remove the umpteen layers of burocracy that are non productive, but then again what do I know.

 

Anyway as far as I can see the UK is already taking steps to resolve the so called elderly issue. They are basically starving elderly people to death in hospitals or isolating them in their homes so they wilt away. If calling a Carer giving 15 minutes of time per day to a live alone patient is good practice, then maybe I have it all wrong. After all these are people who have in the main paid all their taxes, saved where they could and tried not to be a burden on society, so therefore must be eliminated as efficiently as possible. That saves money to be spent elsewhere on salaries and policies. Sounds logical under the current thought processes. Didn’t someone try that one before somewhere of eliminating the unwanted??? Of course allowing every poverty stricken person from everywhere to come in and take the already scarce resources is going to answer all our problems. Well it evidently does if you are a bean counter living in a bubble world. The scary thing is the Report is being taken seriously. Another 6 million immigrants will be the answer to all our problems. Yes, on an Excel spreadsheet but we live in a constantly changing country, not a spreadsheet. So all you people over the age of 55, think not what the country can do for you after all the years you have worked for and paid, merely what you can do for your country, by bluntly ending it all before you try to claim your Pension, that is if you actually have one. After all being an old person in the UK is something to look forward to isn’t it? Well, actually yes, if you are an MP, Minister of the Crown, Union official, Public Sector bigwig, Doctor, banker, footballer, teacher, lawyer, judge, BBC employee, 4th rate Celeb, member of the Royal family. Did I miss any?? You are not one of these?? Sorry, but tough luck. You live alone in your fully paid up house that took you 25 years to get. Your wife/husband died a few years back? Sorry, can’t have you living alone in a 3 bed house. You must give it up for a family from Somalia. We will take the money from your house and any other things you have of value and use it to pay for you to live in an old folks Home where you will be ignored, probably starved, maybe beaten until you die, but it is all in a good cause.

 

Do I actually see this to be the case?? I sure as heck hope not but I am scared.

 

Mind you I was taken by this guy’s comments on it

 

http://kingsbury.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/britain-needs-immigration-to-cover.html

 

By the way, it is a hot night and what else is there to do except moan?? But seriously, it is worrying.

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Sorry didn't read all your post Dave ;-)................block text does my head in but I got the gist I think.............. don't worry though we'll have plenty of new immigrants soon to lighten our wallets from Romania and Bulgaria 8-) ...............coming to cash point near you :D.........

 

I never use them ;-) ..............I'd rather use the ones in a bank :D...........

[Dave225]

Sorry, got carried away on the keyboard. Will shorten it next time.................................or is it to do with your attention span/////////// just wondering Hee! Hee!

[Guest pelmetman]

Dave225 - 2013-07-22 1:50 PM

 

Sorry, got carried away on the keyboard. Will shorten it next time.................................or is it to do with your attention span/////////// just wondering Hee! Hee!

 

Probably ;-)....................but I do find reading block text difficult for some reason :-S..................maybe its some form of dyslexia :D ................

[nowtelse2do]

pelmetman - 2013-07-22 2:40 PM

 

Dave225 - 2013-07-22 1:50 PM

 

Sorry, got carried away on the keyboard. Will shorten it next time.................................or is it to do with your attention span/////////// just wondering Hee! Hee!

 

Probably ;-)....................but I do find reading block text difficult for some reason :-S..................maybe its some form of dyslexia :D ................

 

Dialysex.......Are you feeling lonely Dave? :D or am I suffering the same affliction? :D

 

Dave

[snowie]

I've not read all of your post Dave.......sorry, but I would make the point that if we had full employment in UK; which I think ought to be an aim of any government worth election, then we'd have another 2.5 million workers paying taxes; that ought to help pay for all of us pensioners........I think.

I'll vote for a party that aims for more jobs; can't come soon enough.

It might also make it less necessary for us oldies to keep on working beyond 65.

 

We should also remember that everyone gets older, so everyone becomes a burden, over time. The less necessary it becomes for retirement age to be extended, the more jobs are available for younger people.

Maybe as we approach (or IF and WHEN we approach) full employment, we'll need to employ less immigrants, and the population of UK might stabilize?

Just a few thoughts,

alan b

[Dave225]

One point that crosses my mind, and I admit is a slight digression, is the continual blurb we are getting that 'we are all going to live longer'. Now it may be true as I am no expert but just making a cursory glance at the local Deaths Notices in the newspaper seems to suggest the usual range of 60-80 on average. Pretty much as it has been for the last couple of decades. Yes, we have stopped a lot of early deaths but I am still unconvinced we are entering an era of where everybody will be bouncing about at the age of 100 'a la Cocoon' movies. Yes, we may still be around but in a fit and healthy state?? Sorry I do not wish to be a centenarian vegetable. Anyway, the point is that all the 'forces of finance' seem to be pushing the goalposts ever further away from the majority of us, and I just do not see it working out as they suggest. Plus as pensions for many people have been decimated by greed and incompetence then many old people are still working well beyond where they should really be, and blocking young people getting the jobs. That is neither fair nor sensible. Yes, some people love to work, but I doubt they are a majority.

 

So, mixing the elderly health care issue with immigration sounds to me the usual smokescreen from the powers that be which means they basically have not a clue what to do. Well, they do but are scared to do it.

[nowtelse2do]

From the forums favorite daily paper The Daily Mail, todays Headlines.

 

Nearly 500,000 migrants get social housing.

.................................................................................

 

More coming to you shortly. *-)

 

Dave

[Guest Had Enough]

nowtelse2do - 2013-07-27 10:04 PM

 

From the forums favorite daily paper The Daily Mail, todays Headlines.

 

Nearly 500,000 migrants get social housing.

.................................................................................

 

More coming to you shortly. *-)

 

Dave

 

I don't believe that any immigrant should be able to jump the queue over a Briton except in certain circumstances. So if you have a single Briton who could easily live with his parents and a legal immigrant family with two children I think it's reasonable to give the house to the family.

 

But let's put your headline in perspective. Your figure is actually spread over ten years and the full headline is:

 

Nearly 470,000 of the 4 million migrants who arrived in the last ten years were given council homes.

 

So over ten years just over ten percent of all immigrants have been given council houses.

 

But I suspect that's not exactly the message that you wanted to convey!

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-07-27 11:28 PM

 

nowtelse2do - 2013-07-27 10:04 PM

 

From the forums favorite daily paper The Daily Mail, todays Headlines.

 

Nearly 500,000 migrants get social housing.

.................................................................................

 

More coming to you shortly. *-)

 

Dave

 

I don't believe that any immigrant should be able to jump the queue over a Briton except in certain circumstances. So if you have a single Briton who could easily live with his parents and a legal immigrant family with two children I think it's reasonable to give the house to the family.

 

But let's put your headline in perspective. Your figure is actually spread over ten years and the full headline is:

 

Nearly 470,000 of the 4 million migrants who arrived in the last ten years were given council homes.

 

So over ten years just over ten percent of all immigrants have been given council houses.

 

But I suspect that's not exactly the message that you wanted to convey!

 

 

Which means 470,000 less council houses, and 470,000 less low skill jobs for the indigenous population *-)..................coz if they were highly skilled immigrants I doubt they'd need a council house ;-)

[Guest Had Enough]

pelmetman - 2013-07-28 9:24 AM

 

Which means 470,000 less council houses, and 470,000 less low skill jobs for the indigenous population *-)..................coz if they were highly skilled immigrants I doubt they'd need a council house ;-)

 

Do you ever stop to think and try to consider things a little more deeply before rushing to your keyboard with your knee-jerk gut reactions?

 

Let's start with: "..coz if they were highly skilled immigrants I doubt they'd need a council house"

 

Really? So some skilled immigrant comes to Britain with his family to try to better himself by hard work, which is the case with most of them. He will no doubt come from a much poorer country. I think that's a given!

 

But you expect him to have enough money to put the massive deposit on a house that building societies now demand, and you expect him to be granted a mortgage when he has no credit history and may even be in a job lower than his qualifications allow, which many do so that they can get a foot on the ladder? Mmmm, bit of a flaw in your argument again!

 

Now let's deal with:" Which means 470,000 less council houses, and 470,000 less low skill jobs for the indigenous population."

 

Over the ten year period do you think that none of them will have eventually left the council house or even gone home? A large number of immigrants return to their original country as they find that the UK isn't what they thought, or they've saved up enough money to go back home and buy a house, house prices being peanuts in many countries from which we receive immigrants. Many do eventually buy their own homes after years of hard work and saving.

 

And why do you assume that all 470,000 families are low-skilled? Oh I know, because you think that skilled immigrants can come here, plonk down a huge deposit, get a mortgage and buy a house!

 

Back to the drawing board for you, again, and again and again.......................................

 

 

[RogerC]

Had Enough - 2013-07-28 11:01 AM

pelmetman - 2013-07-28 9:24 AMWhich means 470,000 less council houses, and 470,000 less low skill jobs for the indigenous population *-)..................coz if they were highly skilled immigrants I doubt they'd need a council house ;-)

Do you ever stop to think and try to consider things a little more deeply before rushing to your keyboard with your knee-jerk gut reactions?Let's start with: "..coz if they were highly skilled immigrants I doubt they'd need a council house"Really? So some skilled immigrant comes to Britain with his family to try to better himself by hard work, which is the case with most of them. He will no doubt come from a much poorer country. I think that's a given!But you expect him to have enough money to put the massive deposit on a house that building societies now demand, and you expect him to be granted a mortgage when he has no credit history and may even be in a job lower than his qualifications allow, which many do so that they can get a foot on the ladder? Mmmm, bit of a flaw in your argument again!Now let's deal with:" Which means 470,000 less council houses, and 470,000 less low skill jobs for the indigenous population."Over the ten year period do you think that none of them will have eventually left the council house or even gone home? A large number of immigrants return to their original country as they find that the UK isn't what they thought, or they've saved up enough money to go back home and buy a house, house prices being peanuts in many countries from which we receive immigrants. Many do eventually buy their own homes after years of hard work and saving.And why do you assume that all 470,000 families are low-skilled? Oh I know, because you think that skilled immigrants can come here, plonk down a huge deposit, get a mortgage and buy a house!Back to the drawing board for you, again, and again and again.......................................

 

I expect a 'skilled immigrant' to come here only with a job already secured and a salary of sufficient proportions to enable him/her to pay rent in order to provide for his/her self or family if they so choose and not to have a 'nanny state' provide for them.

 

An ex service friend of mine has recently found work in The Gulf.  He was not 'provided' with accommodation/housing.  He has had to go ahead of his family, find housing and pay for it from his salary package.  Oh and when his contract ends he and they have to leave the country.  This is how it should be.

 

This housing situation is the same throughout the world except here in the LaLa land of liberal, wooly minded extremists.............so WHY the bloody hell should a single person in this country be 'forced' to live with their parents just to allow an 'economic migrant' to come and live here?  Just at what point does a single person get to live their own lives in your scenario?  Do those who lose a wife/husband/partner or anyone in a relationship who finds themselves single once more have to move back home if an immigrant family needs housing?

 

So do you ever stop to think of the implications of, or even the outright stupidity of your outpourings? 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Thanks Roger, you've saved me the trouble ;-)....................and now in proper HE style..........

 

I must retire from this debate as I must dress for luncheon at an award winning restaurant B-).................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hopefully the MIL will pay :D

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2013-07-28 11:31 AM

 

I expect a 'skilled immigrant' to come here only with a job already secured and a salary of sufficient proportions to enable him/her to pay rent in order to provide for his/her self or family if they so choose and not to have a 'nanny state' provide for them

 

Well, you would, wouldn't you? ;-)

[RogerC]

Had Enough - 2013-07-28 12:31 PM

RogerC - 2013-07-28 11:31 AMI expect a 'skilled immigrant' to come here only with a job already secured and a salary of sufficient proportions to enable him/her to pay rent in order to provide for his/her self or family if they so choose and not to have a 'nanny state' provide for them

 

Well, you would, wouldn't you? ;-)

 

Interesting to see you have no reasoned (to you) counter argument this time.  I consider the requirement to provide for my family part and parcel of my 'social' responsibilities as should others with the wherewithal.  Society owes no one a living and the 'welfare state' is there, or at least should be, for those who through no fault of their own find themselves in need of it's services.  It is not, or should not be a 'meal ticket' for those who of their own volition come here for economic reasons expecting to be given a 'welfare handout' from the outset.  Likewise economic migrants who do come here properly sponsored should leave once their employment is terminated.  If this was made clear when issuing work visas there would be less dependency on the State and no cause for complaint/appeal when the time to leave arises.  It works well enough in a great many other countries so why not here?

 

And your answer to the single person living with their parents to free up accommodation for immigrants issue is?

 

 

[nowtelse2do]

Had Enough - 2013-07-27 11:28 PM

 

But let's put your headline in perspective. Your figure is actually spread over ten years and the full headline is:

 

 

OK, lets put the headline in perspective seeing you didn't and chose what you wanted to put, by the way not my figuers, they were the Mail's and were from a report by Sir Andrew Green of the Migration Watch think tank who said. "The figuers serve to underline the huge costs of mass immigration - costs often ignored by the immigration lobby."

 

The report is from 2001 to 2011 so the reported numbers will in all probability be higher now.

 

The revelation comes as the number of families on the waiting list for social housing hits a record high of 1.8million. Most are BRITISH born. (Just to show I'm not prejudice and before you kick off, some of that number will be of coloured persons born here.)

 

Of the 4 million migrants (many good Labour supporters now. My thoughts) who arrived between 2001 and 2011, 469,843 were allocated council or housing association properties.

Around 1.2million foreigners now live in social housing - one in eight of the total. In London the figuer is thought to be as high as one in five. (and I thought congestion charging was about traffic problems)

 

The national census statistics which were relaesed yesterday (Friday 26th) highlight fears about increased pressure on public services when Romanians and Bulgarians win free access to jobs in this country in January. (hence, more coming to you remark)

 

There is more but those are the main points, add more if you wish.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Seeing as free access for Romanians isn't supposed to start until 2014.............there appears to be plenty here already :-S................and I guess even pick pockets need a council house *-)

[Guest Had Enough]

nowtelse2do - 2013-07-28 1:27 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-27 11:28 PM

 

But let's put your headline in perspective. Your figure is actually spread over ten years and the full headline is:

 

 

OK, lets put the headline in perspective seeing you didn't and chose what you wanted to put, by the way not my figuers, they were the Mail's and were from a report by Sir Andrew Green of the Migration Watch think tank who said. "The figuers serve to underline the huge costs of mass immigration - costs often ignored by the immigration lobby."

 

The report is from 2001 to 2011 so the reported numbers will in all probability be higher now.

 

The revelation comes as the number of families on the waiting list for social housing hits a record high of 1.8million. Most are BRITISH born. (Just to show I'm not prejudice and before you kick off, some of that number will be of coloured persons born here.)

 

Of the 4 million migrants (many good Labour supporters now. My thoughts) who arrived between 2001 and 2011, 469,843 were allocated council or housing association properties.

Around 1.2million foreigners now live in social housing - one in eight of the total. In London the figuer is thought to be as high as one in five. (and I thought congestion charging was about traffic problems)

 

The national census statistics which were relaesed yesterday (Friday 26th) highlight fears about increased pressure on public services when Romanians and Bulgarians win free access to jobs in this country in January. (hence, more coming to you remark)

 

There is more but those are the main points, add more if you wish.

 

Dave

 

 

Why are you doing all this? I'm no more in favour of untrammelled immigration than you are. You don't need to convince me that there's a limit to how many people we can take but as it happens immigration is lower than it's been for years.

 

I do not follow the view that all immigrants are scroungers just here for the dole. Most of them are here to better themselves and want to work.

 

But I posted simply because of one thing. You showed a headline which said that 470,000 immigrants had been given social housing. You didn't even give the entire sentence.

 

The facts are that 470,000 immigrants have been given social housing. That's not 470,000 houses, but 470,000 people.

 

But the most significant omission was that this was over ten years and that the 470,000 was out of a total of 4 million! Many of whom by they way will have returned home.

 

I actually thought that out of 4 million immigrants you might be pleased that only 12% were given social housing and the 3,530,000 weren't.

 

So please, I have no argument with you about immigration in general. I just object to the scaremongering that goes on.

 

I've no wish to discuss this further with. You carry on by all means but I'be made the point that I wanted to make.

 

 

[nowtelse2do]

Had Enough - 2013-07-28 6:17 PM

 

I do not follow the view that all immigrants are scroungers just here for the dole. Most of them are here to better themselves and want to work.

 

 

I'm happy to leave it alone with the exception of two points, one relating to your post and one relating to my Daily Mail Headline post, although indirectly.

 

1) I don't believe that most have come here to work with the exception of the Poles, being on our benefit system immediately gives them a huge increase in their standard of living compared with their own countries whether Eastern European, African or some of the Asian countries, so that's the reason I think they come here.

 

2) The EU in its wisdom are offering nearly £1,000 to British firms to employ jobless youngsters from across Europe, I concede that it works both ways but it seems a concentrated effort of the EU to target Britain. Through the scheme, 800,000 UK jobs are being advertised which is more than half the total of the other EU countries. France is advertising 48,330 Italy is 12,193.

That 800,000 jobs in Britain alone is going to cost upwards of £800 million so a chunk of our EU contributions is being used to deprive our own jobless of work.

We have two and a half million unemployed of which 950,000 are under 25 yr .

 

This of course lets other countries say that their unemployment had dropped such as Spain did last month but mainly part time holiday work will have contributed to that.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

It appears our lords and masters don't have a clue as to net migration, how can they say they have reduced it by a third when they don't actually know how many are arriving?;-).................

 

UK migration figures a best guess, say MPs

 

 

Alun Cairns MP from the public administration committee: ''The margin for error is quite significant''

Official UK migration figures are "little better than a best guess", an influential group of MPs has said.

 

The Public Administration Committee said the statistics were "not fit for purpose" and did not accurately assess how many non-UK residents were entering and leaving the country.

 

The MPs recommended finding new ways to gather migration information.

 

But immigration minister Mark Harper defended the statistics as "accurate" and "very robust".

 

Labour said the home secretary needed to look at how to measure immigration more accurately "as a matter of urgency".

 

'Blunt instruments'

In the year to June 2012, immigration was estimated at 515,000 while emigration was estimated at 352,000, putting net migration - the difference between the number of people entering and leaving the country - at 163,000.

 

The Conservatives want to reduce the net migration figure from non-EU countries to under 100,000 a year by 2015.

 

But the MPs warned that current net migration statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Home Office were "blunt instruments" and were "not adequate for understanding the scale and complexity of modern migration flows".

 

In particular, the MPs criticised the main source for producing migration figures - the International Passenger Survey (IPS).

 

It was designed in the early 1960s to examine tourism trends and is based on "random interviews" with travellers both arriving and departing at ports and airports.

 

The Office for National Statistics takes the raw IPS data and adds information about asylum seekers and migration statistics from Northern Ireland, as well as figures for people who have entered the country on short-term visas and decided to ask to extend their stay, before arriving at a final immigration figure.

 

The Public Administration Committee said just 5,000 migrants a year were identified through the survey and it had a "large margin of error".

 

It said the migration estimates based on the IPS were "too uncertain" to accurately measure progress against the government's net migration target.

 

And the IPS failed to gather the type of information needed to work out the social and economic consequences of migration, such as demand for the NHS or schools, the MPs said.

 

Committee chairman Bernard Jenkin said: "Most people would be utterly astonished to learn that there is no attempt to count people as they enter or leave the UK.

 

"As an island nation, with professional statisticians and effective border controls, we could gain decent estimates of who exactly is coming into this country, where they come from, and why they are coming here.

 

"As it is, the top line numbers for the government's 100,000 net migration target are little better than a best guess - and could be out by tens of thousands."

 

The committee said migration figures could be considerably improved if the Home Office and ONS properly recorded and linked the data they already gathered.

 

It also called for the e-borders system - which once operational is expected to collect details from passenger lists of all people entering and leaving the UK - to be implemented as quickly as possible.

 

'A bit dodgy'

Alp Mehmet from Migration Watch, which campaigns for tighter controls of immigration, backed the committee's findings, saying the current way of counting migration was not precise enough.

 

He told BBC News: "We need to have more interviews overseas. We need to have immigration officers on embarkation controls. We need to bring back common sense into the whole immigration system rather than relying on sample numbers that are no good to man nor beast."

 

But Mark Harper, the immigration minister, urged people to trust the ONS's methods.

 

"They're the experts in collecting data," he told BBC Radio 4's World This Weekend. "We know that we're issuing fewer visas for people coming to the United Kingdom....

 

"We're also getting the right people coming here. So we've reduced overall net migration by a third, but we've actually increased the number of skilled workers coming here."

 

The government had "rooted out the students who are bogus", he added.

 

 

Business Secretary Vince Cable has described as "stupid and offensive" a van displaying advertising which says illegal immigrants should go home of face arrest.

Shadow immigration minister Chris Bryant said the government's figures were "a bit dodgy".

 

"What they should be doing is having a system of counting people in and out," the Labour MP said, adding that it would be an "own goal" if more British people were leaving the country, students were not coming to UK universities or if the NHS was unable to recruit from abroad.

 

'Stupid and offensive'

Meanwhile, Business Secretary Vince Cable sought to distance the Liberal Democrats from their coalition partners, saying the target to reduce net migration was "misleading" because it included students, who were just visiting and were "good for the country".

 

He told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: "We're not a totalitarian state. We don't count every single person.

 

"The point about those numbers is it only really matters if you're pursuing some target.

 

Illegal immigrant advert van

The billboards are on display in six London boroughs

"There's this net immigration figure, which the Conservatives are very preoccupied with, but it's not a government objective."

 

He also said a government pilot scheme to target illegal immigrants, which involved a van driving around six London boroughs carrying a billboard telling illegal immigrants to "go home or face arrest", was "stupid and offensive".

 

"It is designed, apparently, to create a sense of fear in the British population that we have a vast problem of illegal immigration," he said.

 

"We have a problem but it is not a vast one and it's got to be dealt with in a measured way, dealing with the underlying causes."

 

Mr Cable said he and other Liberal Democrats in government had not been consulted on the scheme and it was "very unlikely" it would continue.

 

Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said the billboard was a Conservative "attempt to try and win over UKIP voters".