Sunder Katwala (sundersays)

Reform's main response will be to try to increase the salience of immigration. (The Cons want to increase the salience of the economy, to help them lead Reform, but want to challenge the govt on immigration, boats, ILR). Reopening Brexit arguments may help Labour & Reform, much more than the Cons

They reflect *median* public opinion (closer links, pragmatic, not sure how far) rather than media opinion, which is dominated by 2014-16-19 muscle memory in 2026

Reform's main response will be to try to increase the salience of immigration. (The Cons want to increase the salience of the economy, to help them lead Reform, but want to challenge the govt on immigration, boats, ILR). Reopening Brexit arguments may help Labour & Reform, much more than the Cons

The Conservative policy - oppose & pledge to reverse all moves to deepen cooperation - is a significant danger to the Badenoch strategy of how to go past Reform with economy-focused middle-class Conservative voters bsky.app/profile/sund...

Reform's main response will be to try to increase the salience of immigration. (The Cons want to increase the salience of the economy, to help them lead Reform, but want to challenge the govt on immigration, boats, ILR). Reopening Brexit arguments may help Labour & Reform, much more than the Cons

Peter Franklin of Unherd guesses that high levels of support for free movement for the single market - including large minorities of rightwing voters - most probably means that people don't know that EU free movement means people in Europe would live + work in Britain unherd.com/newsroom/lab...

All 450 million people having the right in theory to live + work here would be a challenge if they all did at once. If there was nobody left in France/Germany, tricky for exporters too! A countervailing risk is that *everybody* could leave the UK for eg Spain - so we had no population ourselves

The Democrats routing Trump would make then a party of past grievances rather than forward-looking optimism. They could have been better off losing this one to Trump than defeating him comprehensively, opines Justin Webb of the BBC

Webb says his D friends relieved at Trump 2024 win "Even Democrat-supporting friends of mine in the city seemed somehow relieved. Their own party would get a kick up the backside and if Trump could end illegal immigration, reduce inflation and combat woke universities, hey, maybe it's not all bad?"

The Democrats routing Trump would make then a party of past grievances rather than forward-looking optimism. They could have been better off losing this one to Trump than defeating him comprehensively, opines Justin Webb of the BBC

Peter Franklin of Unherd guesses that high levels of support for free movement for the single market - including large minorities of rightwing voters - most probably means that people don't know that EU free movement means people in Europe would live + work in Britain unherd.com/newsroom/lab...

Peter Franklin of Unherd guesses that high levels of support for free movement for the single market - including large minorities of rightwing voters - most probably means that people don't know that EU free movement means people in Europe would live + work in Britain unherd.com/newsroom/lab...

One of the least understood things about immigration policy is that the government can make changes on this scale without any vote at all. Chris Philp is offering the Home Secretary the votes of the Opposition to vote her original policy through unamended - but PM and Cabinet will surely change it

That response was on March 7th 2026. It is an own goal for ministers have produced this eye-catching but misleading number to defend the government's policy, from critics, before now conceding the policy being challenged - so that the eye-catching but misleading number is used against the govt

One of the least understood things about immigration policy is that the government can make changes on this scale without any vote at all. Chris Philp is offering the Home Secretary the votes of the Opposition to vote her original policy through unamended - but PM and Cabinet will surely change it

Philp's letter: the £10 billion claim is misleading + untrue, but it is true that the Home Secretary said this in her speech to the IPPR in March.

The UK is holding talks with the EU to inform the government outlining future options/scenarios about the next decade. For example, using diplomatic channels to check UK understands that EU sees free movement is part of the single market + full EU membership! www.thetimes.com/article/4ef6...

"As the Employers’ Migrant Labour Levy will take time to design, this change will be introduced in the second tax year of this Budget period". However, the party appears to have a lot of income booked from this policy www.reformparty.uk/policies/eco...

£4 billion in fees in 2024 forecast (net migration 350k; immig around 1m) Reform project visa fees to *increase* by £1.3 billion 2027/28, £2.6 billion 2028/29 + £3.64bn 2029/30, £3.6 bn 2030/31 and £3.4 bn in 2031/32 with zero net migration (immigration halved to 500k) + mass deportations

"As the Employers’ Migrant Labour Levy will take time to design, this change will be introduced in the second tax year of this Budget period". However, the party appears to have a lot of income booked from this policy www.reformparty.uk/policies/eco...

"Increased immigration fees" rise from £1.38 billion to £3.5 billion (despite the policy to have zero net migration) while the migrant workers levy raises £7 billion/year - £28 billion/4 years - despite party saying it will lead to migrants not being hired, and having to leave.

A government u-turn on indefinite leave to remain would certainly not cost £10 billion - since the proposals would not have saved 90%+ of this figure. However, it is now a headache for the government that the Home Secretary made that claim in March. They should produce the real numbers

There is a much smaller fiscal cost of the settlement proposals than was suggested (maybe £600m-£1bn in next decade) but Home Office has stonewalled MP and Peer questions for the actual saving. There is a much bigger fiscal cost of the net migration reduction than that. bsky.app/profile/sund...

A government u-turn on indefinite leave to remain would certainly not cost £10 billion - since the proposals would not have saved 90%+ of this figure. However, it is now a headache for the government that the Home Secretary made that claim in March. They should produce the real numbers

The Home Office told me at the time that the claim of a £10 billion "lifetime cost" (£9.5 billion) did not mean the Home Sec meant the government's proposals would save that £9.5 billion, but would not say what fiscal difference the government's proposals would make. bsky.app/profile/sund...

Recommended new half-term activities: supermarket trip with 15 year old to decide what to put in the stockpile shelf We did establish the 3 days rule was 'just in case' for storms, power cuts, or internet failures, etc - not because WW3 is about to break out. (Govt gives the vibe it may think that)