Why Have You Told Us For Years That It Is, Then?

And more to the point, why are you telling us something different now?

The list of problems inherited from the Conservatives by Keir Starmer is long, but near the top is how to respond to record levels of net migration.

Is it because Starmer is now getting it in the neck? Well, that's one of the drawbacks of no longer being in opposition - the buck stops where now, Larry? 

Starmer has pledged to reduce the economy’s dependency on foreign workers, yet he will need them if he is to have any hope of hitting the government’s target of building 1.5m new homes in England in the current parliament. The construction industry says an additional 251,000 skilled workers will be required in the next five years and there simply aren’t enough UK-born plumbers, bricklayers and electricians to meet the expected demand. The same applies to the target that 92% of patients in England should be waiting no longer than 18 weeks for elective treatment. There is not the time to train more domestic doctors and nurses, so without the NHS being able to recruit from overseas, waiting lists will not come down as planned.

And are we to believe the government doesn't know this? So, they are lying, Larry. Aren't they?

It is because migration is so complex and contentious that those who highlight the possible downsides of migration need to have their voices heard.

Then why have you shouted them down with cries of 'racist!' for the last few years? And why have you changed your tune now? 

...the list of those concerned starts at the top with the prime minister, who said that the latest figures were “off the scale”. Starmer is right about that. If the OBR is correct, by the end of this parliament migration will have boosted the UK’s population by 4 million in just eight years. The idea that this can happen without economic effects, without political ramifications and without the public noticing is for the birds.

It's because Starmer's in trouble, isn't it?