Part 3: Beyond the Slogans: Official Figures Show Britain Can’t Fund the NHS or Pensions Without Migration

This is the final part of our series exploring why migration matters, building on the arguments set out in Parts One and Two.

Migration, asylum and the bigger demographic picture

Seen together, the ONS projections, the NAO investigation and the LSE “Welcoming Growth” study tell a coherent story.

• The ONS says Britain is a low-fertility, ageing country where all net population growth in the next decade is projected to come from migration.

• The GAD says the number of people aged 85 and over will almost double in 25 years, and the ratio of pensioners to workers will rise even with continued migration.

• The NAO says asylum seekers are a small share of overall migration, but we currently run such an inefficient asylum system that it costs billions more than it should, distorts local housing markets, and undermines public confidence.

• The LSE team shows that if we redesigned the system around faster decisions, early work access, language classes, job help and mental health support, we could cut total asylum-related costs by around 40% and generate substantial net gains for the public finances as well as the wider economy.

Put differently: the demographic case for migration is strong, and the economic case for a fair, efficient asylum system is just as strong. But the way we currently manage one part of the system – asylum – makes the whole debate look chaotic and wasteful.

There is a deeper irony too. While asylum seekers are mostly barred from working, several European neighbours allow them into the labour market far sooner, reducing the cost to taxpayers and helping fill labour shortages. In a country that needs more workers, we have chosen to pay people not to work for long periods, then complain that they are a burden.

From demographic maths to everyday reality

It is easy to talk about “dependency ratios” and “working-age populations” as if they were just lines on a chart. In reality, an ageing, low-fertility country with fewer workers means something much more concrete: less of the people we rely on every day.

Fewer working-age adults does not just mean a smaller tax base in the abstract. It means fewer nurses on hospital wards, fewer care workers to support older people at home, and fewer staff in already-stretched care homes. It means fewer police officers on the streets, fewer paramedics answering 999 calls, fewer social workers, teaching assistants, bus drivers, engineers and technicians – the everyday roles that keep a modern country functioning.

At the same time, taxes would have to rise on a smaller pool of workers to pay for the growing costs of pensions, the NHS and adult social care. Those who are still in work would be asked to shoulder more, while receiving less in return from public services that are thinning out under the weight of demand.

That is the real “direction of travel” if we continue with an ageing population, low birth rates and a political promise to cut migration sharply, while running an asylum system that burns billions through delay and mismanagement. It is not an abstract culture-war argument. It is a picture of a Britain with fewer people to care, protect and respond – and more pressure on those left to pick up the bill.

What this means for tax, services and politics

For ordinary people, this is not an abstract demographic puzzle; it is about what the country will feel like to live in.

• Without migration and without more births, the UK becomes a smaller, older society where taxes on those still working have to rise, or services are cut, or both.

• With managed migration and support for families, the UK has a better chance of maintaining a healthy ratio of workers to pensioners, funding the NHS and social care, and keeping the public finances on something like an even keel.

The NAO’s analysis adds another layer: even within current migration levels, we are wasting money by running an asylum system that is slow, fragmented and over-dependent on expensive hotels. The LSE modelling goes further and shows that a faster, more humane system could generate significant net savings and higher tax revenues over time, if we invest upfront in decisions, language, jobs and mental health instead of in endless hotel bills 

A more efficient system – with proper planning, better data, realistic policies on removals and quicker decisions – could save at least a billion pounds a year by the late 2020s, money that could instead support the NHS, social care or local councils.

The warning label on Britain’s demographic future now has two lines:

• If we insist on treating migrants as a problem and children as a private luxury, we will end up with fewer workers, higher taxes and thinner services.

• If we also refuse to fix an asylum system that is demonstrably poor value for money, we will throw away billions that an ageing country cannot spare.

Those are choices, not inevitabilities. But they are choices that cannot be ducked forever behind three-word slogans.

The unanswered question for every party

There is one question that hangs over all of this, and it is not a technical one. It is brutally simple:

Which party is prepared to spell out, in public and in detail, how they intend to deal with these demographic facts if they are not willing to rely on migration?

If we do not have more workers coming from abroad, and we are not having enough children to replace ourselves, then somebody has to pay the bill for an older, longer-lived population. The choices are not mysterious; they are just politically uncomfortable.

So Reform UK – or any other party that promises to cut migration while keeping taxes low and services strong – should be pressed to answer some very specific questions.

• Who exactly will they tax more?

Will it be only the very rich, or also the supermarket shelf-stacker and the nurse on nights? Will the police officer, the care worker and the teaching assistant be asked to shoulder more of the burden? What about people who are out of work – will support be cut further, or contributions demanded in other ways?

• What services will they cut, and by how much?

If the answer is “no more migration”, then the maths still has to add up. Will they fund the NHS, adult social care and pensions by cutting other parts of the state – and if so, which ones, and by how much?

• Will they be honest about fertility policy?

If they plan to rely on a home-grown population instead of migrants, will they set out serious policies to support larger families – on housing, childcare and income – and put a price tag on them? Are they prepared to offer explicit financial incentives for people to have more children, and to defend that choice openly to voters who do not have, or do not want, children?

• Above all: will they publish the worked-through numbers?

It is easy to talk about “stopping the boats” or “taking back control”. It is much harder to show, line by line, how a country with fewer workers and more pensioners can fund the NHS, social care, pensions and everything else without either migration or significantly higher taxes on someone.

Until any party – Reform UK, Conservative, Labour or anyone else – answers those questions in hard numbers rather than slogans, the honest conclusion remains that the sums do not yet add up.

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent