Jonathan Portes
@jdportes.bsky.social
Professor of Economics and Public Policy, King's College London; Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe. Immigration, economics, public policy. Personal views only; usual disclaimers apply.
Books: Immigration (Sage), Capitalism (Quercus)
Books: Immigration (Sage), Capitalism (Quercus)
Did you read the article?
December 2, 2025 at 1:18 AM
Did you read the article?
sure. But I doubt it will have a significant impact on the negative economic costs of the government's immigration policy.
December 1, 2025 at 10:45 PM
sure. But I doubt it will have a significant impact on the negative economic costs of the government's immigration policy.
(I would do it but I currently have at least 4 outstanding cases at IPSO and they may be a bit bored with me.
December 1, 2025 at 9:57 PM
(I would do it but I currently have at least 4 outstanding cases at IPSO and they may be a bit bored with me.
What projected loss? There are no credible estimates.
December 1, 2025 at 9:47 PM
What projected loss? There are no credible estimates.
Reposted by Jonathan Portes
If the Chancellor had told the OBR what the Home Secretary says here is a firm commitment of the government, she would need > £7.5 billion of tax rises or spending cuts to afford to lift the two child limit. The fiscal forecast is based on not cutting immigration further & it drifting up to > 300k
December 1, 2025 at 1:12 PM
If the Chancellor had told the OBR what the Home Secretary says here is a firm commitment of the government, she would need > £7.5 billion of tax rises or spending cuts to afford to lift the two child limit. The fiscal forecast is based on not cutting immigration further & it drifting up to > 300k
Reposted by Jonathan Portes
This is the main issue here -they are absolutely *not* comparing "equivalent" families
bsky.app/profile/beel...
bsky.app/profile/beel...
Had a look at the "study" the article is based on.
They take a couple with children then assume the couple claim maximum disability benefits for themselves and the kids on top of UC and housing.
They then assume the working couple claim nothing at all....
They take a couple with children then assume the couple claim maximum disability benefits for themselves and the kids on top of UC and housing.
They then assume the working couple claim nothing at all....
November 30, 2025 at 9:23 PM
This is the main issue here -they are absolutely *not* comparing "equivalent" families
bsky.app/profile/beel...
bsky.app/profile/beel...
Reposted by Jonathan Portes
Had a look at the "study" the article is based on.
They take a couple with children then assume the couple claim maximum disability benefits for themselves and the kids on top of UC and housing.
They then assume the working couple claim nothing at all....
They take a couple with children then assume the couple claim maximum disability benefits for themselves and the kids on top of UC and housing.
They then assume the working couple claim nothing at all....
November 30, 2025 at 5:17 PM
Had a look at the "study" the article is based on.
They take a couple with children then assume the couple claim maximum disability benefits for themselves and the kids on top of UC and housing.
They then assume the working couple claim nothing at all....
They take a couple with children then assume the couple claim maximum disability benefits for themselves and the kids on top of UC and housing.
They then assume the working couple claim nothing at all....