The Tories’ failure to meet Cameron’s immigration target is their only success

Ever since an interview with David Cameron on the Andrew Marr Show in 2008, immigration was placed front and centre on the national agenda. In the 2010 election Cameron pledged to limit net immigration to “tens of thousands a year”, stating that net immigration of 200,000 a year was “too much”. It was a target unsupported by factual evidence or recognisable needs. After 12 years of Tory government, the number stands at 504,000.

Cameron’s view, driven in no small part by fear of the far right, treated immigration as an undesirable weight gain bloating the population, something to be remedied by some sort of diet. In reality, it is essential to the health of a growing economy. Just consider the NHS, which for many years has benefited from the flow of the literally life-preserving transfusion of foreign labour.

The government’s obvious failure to meet a spurious target on immigration, which itself appears based on little more than an ingrained prejudice recognising neither its purpose nor value, could be considered one of their few successes, albeit a success limited by Brexit and their obstructive hostility to immigration. Had Cameron’s wishes been fulfilled, our dire labour shortages in many vital areas would be much worse.

The economic benefits of immigration are paralleled by the accompanying enhancement of cultural diversity rightly lauded by many. It enriches both our economy and our lives.

David Nelmes

Newport

In the article “Watchdog sorry for MPs’ Christmas party advice“, I feel that Ipsa were right to be sorry. They were wrong to advise MPs that they could claim such expenses at all. If MPs wish to have such festivities then they and participants should cover the costs themselves, surely?

David Lane

I recall a monologue in which Joyce Grenfell says “go and see what the boys are doing and tell them to stop”. In this sentiment, that they are probably doing something they shouldn’t, we could substitute the government for “the boys”.

John Riseley

North Yorkshire

John Rentoul’s analysis of the demise of recent prime ministers is sharp as ever. However, I suggest it comes down to this: Johnson is a liar, and Truss was out of her depth. People can smell bad leaders at a distance.

Mark Ogilvie

Horncastle

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

I agree with John Rentoul when he says Truss and Johnson’s instant disloyalty is an ominous sign for the Conservatives, and is a tangible indication that this party is fracturing and perhaps giving up the ghost in many ways.

These tit for tat reprisals from former prime ministers is rather predictable but indicative of the unstable governance this beleaguered country is being subjected to on a daily basis.

Of course the once powerful are now on the back benches, and this must make for an unenviable quaking on the front bench. But surely in these very febrile and dangerous times, past political grandees must always act for the common good in any given situation. Because that is the least the public deserve, expect and require.

Judith A Daniels

Norfolk