- Immigrant Times
- Jan 13
- 4 min read
Two conservative British newspapers question the wisdom of rigid immigration control
In separate articles, The Daily Telegraph and The Times argue that net-zero migration may be politically attractive, but economically costly to the country
By The Immigrant Times
The Daily Telegraph and The Times, Britain’s most widely read conservative-leaning quality newspapers, take a more nuanced view of immigration control than conservative politicians
January 2026: It is striking that two conservative-leaning British newspapers, The Telegraph and The Times, have recently published opinion pieces warning of the economic risks of pursuing net-zero immigration. In a political climate where reducing immigration is often treated as an unqualified good, both articles reach a similar conclusion from different angles: sharply curbing migration would likely weaken the UK economy rather than strengthen it.
The interventions are notable not because they advocate liberal immigration policy as a moral cause, but because they frame migration as a practical economic input, one that underpins growth, public finances, and labour market stability.
The Daily Telegraph: Net-zero migration as an economic constraint
In ‘What would the British economy look like with net-zero migration?’, Hans van Leeuwen, writing with a fellow Telegraph economics colleague, examines what would happen if the UK achieved a political goal often promised but rarely analysed in detail.
The article’s core argument is that net-zero migration would act as a brake on economic growth. With Britain’s population ageing and birth rates below replacement level, immigration currently supplies much of the growth in the working-age population. Removing that inflow would mean fewer workers, tighter labour markets, and slower expansion.
The authors stress that sectors such as health and social care, construction, hospitality, logistics, and agriculture are already struggling to recruit. Under net-zero migration, these pressures would intensify, pushing up wages in some areas but also raising costs for businesses and, ultimately, consumers.
Crucially, the article also highlights fiscal consequences. Immigrants, especially those of working age, contribute disproportionately to tax revenues. A sharp reduction in migration would therefore leave the Treasury with fewer taxpayers supporting rising age-related spending, making public services harder to fund without higher taxes or spending cuts.
The Telegraph piece does not argue for unlimited immigration. Instead, it frames net-zero as an economically blunt instrument, a target that ignores demographic reality and productivity constraints.
The Times: Immigration, tax and the workforce
The Times article referenced alongside the Telegraph piece approaches the issue from a slightly different direction, focusing on labour supply, taxation, and the mobility of workers.
Rather than centring the discussion on immigration targets alone, The Times author warns that restricting migration while maintaining high taxes and weak productivity growth risks creating a shrinking and less dynamic workforce. In this telling, the danger is not only fewer migrants arriving, but also more domestic and internationally mobile workers choosing to leave.
The argument is that immigration has helped cushion the UK against precisely these pressures. Without it, labour shortages would become more acute, wages would rise unevenly, and the tax base would narrow, placing additional strain on public finances. Net-zero migration, the article suggests, would amplify existing structural weaknesses rather than resolve them.
Like the Telegraph piece, the Times article treats migration primarily as an economic variable rather than a cultural or political one.
Different emphases, shared conclusions
While both newspapers reach broadly similar conclusions, their emphases differ. The Telegraph focuses more heavily on macroeconomic mechanics: demographics, labour supply, inflationary pressure, and fiscal sustainability. Its critique of net-zero migration is rooted in growth theory and population trends.
The Times, by contrast, places greater weight on behavioural and fiscal dynamics, including the interaction between migration, taxation, and worker mobility. Its concern is that restricting immigration without reforming the wider economic model risks accelerating stagnation.
Despite these differences, the underlying message is the same: net-zero migration may be politically attractive, but economically costly.
A notable intervention from the conservative press
These arguments carry particular weight because both pieces come from well-established, conservative-leaning outlets and are written by respected economic commentators rather than campaigners. Neither article challenges the government’s right to manage borders; instead, both question whether a rigid numerical target makes economic sense.
Taken together, the two opinion pieces represent an unusual moment of convergence in the conservative press. The Telegraph article, written by Hans van Leeuwen in collaboration with a fellow economics writer, outlines the macroeconomic and demographic risks associated with pursuing net-zero migration.
The Times contribution, written by one of its senior economic commentators, approaches the issue from the perspective of labour markets, taxation, and workforce mobility. While differing in emphasis, both articles arrive at a similar conclusion: that a rigid net-zero migration target may satisfy political instincts, but risks undermining growth, public finances, and economic resilience. That such warnings are coming from within the conservative mainstream makes them all the more noteworthy. (Both articles were published in January 2026.)
Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Filipino immigrant care workers in Britain || How Northallerton welcomes refugees || The economic benefits of immigration in Britain || British asylum reforms threaten entrepreneurs || British party leaders on immigration ||
COMMENTS
FOLLOW