Not sure of all he has in mind but he notes, e.g, that raising the UK’s pension age by 1 year is more effective in having a lower share of pensioners than tripling net migration. He also notes that demographers show immigration makes the population younger in the short-run yet older in the long-run.

You may be right. But see FT on Alan Manning's new book today: "One [overblown] claim [he challenges] is that rich countries need higher immigration to pay for healthcare & pensions... But migrants too grow old, & other policies — pension reform, say — are far more powerful tools."

If I recall correctly, anxiety about immigration did drop in polls after Brexit but resumed when numbers soared to record highs. And recall that gross immigration = 900,000, so that 1 in 77 people in the country arrived in the year to June 25 (1 in 30 over the past 2 yrs). We're not Fortress UK.

Although, we're having a population boom now so when the immigrants get older they may be like the baby boom generation in numbers, only (I assume) poorer.

I'm puzzled by this thread & the comments as immigration is historically v. high. Even today's stats about a drop in net immigration misses that gross immigration was 900,000 (lots of people left, notably young Brits). So 1 in 77 people in the UK arrived in the year to June 2025. How high can we go?

For those who want to know the economic facts about immigration (neither "side" will like all he has to say), LSE labour economist Alan Manning has a new book out tomorrow.