Jonathan Portes
LightNews LightNews
banner
jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes
@jdportes.bsky.social
64K followers 660 following 5.1K posts

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)
.. more

Videos

Jonathan Daniel Portes is a professor of Economics and Public Policy at the School of Politics & Economics of King's College, London and a senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe.

Source: Wikipedia
Political science 31%
Economics 28%
Posts Replies Media Videos

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 10h
?? the study visa and graduate visa are not relevant here, since you have to get the work visa on the same basis as an out-of-country applicant. So it's only then you are on a visa with a path to settlement.

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 10h
from today's Times...

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 11h
Indeed. As the FT piece points out. I agree that there is a very strong moral and political case against these changes but there is also a very strong economic/fiscal one!

www.ft.com/content/ca14...
Non-working partners risk limbo with UK migration reforms, analysis finds
Research comes as ministers signal rethink of policy that could carry big fiscal cost
www.ft.com

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 11h
Your misunderstanding of the position is fairly obvious from the reference to study visas, since these never had a path to settlement/ILR. And while the work visas were time-limited they were also explicitly renewable (subject to conditions) and provided a path to settlement in 5 years.

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 11h
The government's earned settlement proposals manage to be politically and morally bankrupt at the same time as being economically and fiscally counterproductive.

Quite remarkable really.

www.ft.com/content/ca14...
Non-working partners risk limbo with UK migration reforms, analysis finds
Research comes as ministers signal rethink of policy that could carry big fiscal cost
www.ft.com

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 11h
well, possibly, but I think he mostly just wanted a safe space where he would be shielded from any actual critique of his views..

Reposted by Jonathan Portes, Will Jennings

benansell.bsky.social
Ben Ansell @benansell.bsky.social · 12h
True on economics but total misunderstanding in Number 10 about immigration. They seem to think that Labour voters don’t have any friends or colleagues who are immigrants or that if they do they can be bought off with an angry tweet about rich people.

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 12h
When the woke lynch mob hounded and harassed him out of Birkbeck 😉
(2-3 years ago maybe?)

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 12h
Answer: Volk.

(From @paulrobertsnhs.bsky.social )
ryanshorthouse.bsky.social Ryan Shorthouse @ryanshorthouse.bsky.social · 13h
📺 Watch @brightblueuk.bsky.social latest Ludgate Lecture with Professor Eric Kaufmann from the University of Buckingham

“What comes after Woke?”

More here: www.youtube.com/watch?app=de...

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 12h
Nailed it.

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 12h
Sigh. Tesco do pay London weighting.

But that's not the point. The point is that you refuse to do the very basic sums required, which would show that your claims are complete fantasy.

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 12h
Presumably the answer to the question is the white ethnonationalism Kaufman has so assiduously promoted.
ryanshorthouse.bsky.social Ryan Shorthouse @ryanshorthouse.bsky.social · 13h
📺 Watch @brightblueuk.bsky.social latest Ludgate Lecture with Professor Eric Kaufmann from the University of Buckingham

“What comes after Woke?”

More here: www.youtube.com/watch?app=de...

Reposted by Jonathan Portes

ryanshorthouse.bsky.social
Ryan Shorthouse @ryanshorthouse.bsky.social · 13h
📺 Watch @brightblueuk.bsky.social latest Ludgate Lecture with Professor Eric Kaufmann from the University of Buckingham

“What comes after Woke?”

More here: www.youtube.com/watch?app=de...

Reposted by Jonathan Portes

sundersays.bsky.social
Sunder Katwala (sundersays) @sundersays.bsky.social · 13h
Robert Jenrick told attendees he wouldnt have left Tory Party “if I had thought for one moment there was an antisemitic bone in Nigel Farage’s body.”

Purpose of Reform Jewish Alliance is Jewish people should have a voice + space within Reform

But Mendoza is calling (sincere) Jewish ex-pupils liars

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 13h
which part of "try working it out" [rather than just repeating what you already said] did you not understand? What wage would Tesco have to pay a lone parent with 2 kids in London?

bsky.app/profile/jdpo...
jdportes.bsky.social Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 15h
Sigh. This is just complete fantasy, totally divorced from the reality of people's lives/incomes. Try working out what Tesco would need to pay a lone parent with 2 kids working in London so they would not "need state funded wage top ups."

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 14h
Moreover - over the last decade we have done *exactly* what you propose.

Osborne made large, sustained cuts to UC for low income families and large sustained rises in the NMW.

By your logic that should have been good for workers, bad for Tesco.

Was it? What happened to poverty?

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 14h
Tesco's margins are 5%. Could they pay a little more (which would be passed on to shoppers)?

Probably. Would it make any meaningful impact on the need for UC for workers with families. No.*Very" marginal. Just do the sums!

Reposted by Jonathan Portes

crookedfootball.bsky.social
Chris Bertram @crookedfootball.bsky.social · 14h
I still think about this article, but reading Simone Weil on duties and rights brought it back to mind
The Gaza family torn apart by IDF snipers from Chicago and Munich
Five-month investigation reveals how four members of one family were shot and killed in a single day and highlights a pattern in which Israeli troops target unarmed civilians
www.theguardian.com

Reposted by Jonathan Portes

sjwrenlewis.bsky.social
Simon Wren-Lewis @sjwrenlewis.bsky.social · 14h
Y'days post: Fiscal watchdogs, pluralist democracy, technocracy and evidence based policy mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2026/02/fisc...
Calls to abolish the OBR are inherently populist, and would have the effect of suppressing the influence of knowledge on decision making.
Fiscal watchdogs, pluralist democracy, technocracy and evidence based policy
When I write about fiscal watchdogs like the OBR in the UK, I generally get some comments along the lines that these watchdogs produce tec...
mainlymacro.blogspot.com

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 14h
No. Not even remotely feasible. Just do the basic sums on how much a low paid worker with a family needs not to be in poverty

Reposted by Jonathan Portes

chrisdillow.bsky.social
Chris Dillow @chrisdillow.bsky.social · 14h
Labour's problem isn't merely one of personnel. It's that the main factions of the party lack an analysis of capitalism, & therefore an awareness that boosting growth (the answer to many problems) requires a lot of work. Here's one I wrote 5 years (!) ago: chrisdillow.substack.com/p/starmer-an...
Starmer and the C-word
Starmer's Labour is incurious about the nature of capitalism.
chrisdillow.substack.com

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 14h
I agree entirely, of course, but note you haven't commented on this? (Unless I missed it?)

These proposals -by your government -are live and would lead to a substantial increase in child poverty.

www.ippr.org/media-office...
300,000 children already welcomed to UK face living in limbo for a decade under Home Office immigration plan | IPPR
Children are nearly a quarter of the 1.35 million legal migrants whose wait for certainty could be extended by at least five yearsDelayed green light to se
www.ippr.org

Reposted by Jonathan Portes, Felicity Callard

sarahpyke.bsky.social
Sarah Pyke @sarahpyke.bsky.social · 14h
the whole thing is of course completely revolting. 20 YEARS to settlement for refugees? no settlement if you’ve ever had a criminal conviction or a tax debt? 10 YEARS added if you’ve ever received benefits? partners and children on their own routes to settlement? What are you even TALKING about

Reposted by Jonathan Portes

jamesdaustin.bsky.social
James Austin @jamesdaustin.bsky.social · 15h
This would be a strong critique, if it wasnt for the fact all of this is in Labour's manifesto.

You know what isnt? The sort of immigration reforms proposed in the white paper

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 15h
I don't see how that's remotely realistic, no; that's why we have (and will continue to have) child benefits, etc, let alone in-work benefits. I don't really see that as a problem? The problem is people describing it as a corporate subsidy rather than a necessary feature of a modern welfare state

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 15h
Sigh. This is just complete fantasy, totally divorced from the reality of people's lives/incomes. Try working out what Tesco would need to pay a lone parent with 2 kids working in London so they would not "need state funded wage top ups."

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 15h
No, because what may be a liveable wage for a single person may still be way below the poverty line for someone with kids. You can't square this circle with any remotely feasible NMW - this is why in-work benefits are essential.

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 1d
Yes that's fair. In practice we see very little wage impact (because of NMW and because obviously benefits only go to a subset of workers whereas wages are uniform(

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 1d
This is the argument made above. I agree it's completely wrong! Just making the reduction ad absurdum here.

bsky.app/profile/debs...
debsinindia.bsky.social debsinindia.bsky.social @debsinindia.bsky.social · 1d
If people who are in work are also receiving benefits to make ends meet, the benefits system is subsidising the corporates, not the people. A fact that seems under-reported.

jdportes.bsky.social
Jonathan Portes @jdportes.bsky.social · 1d
Indeed. It's true that if there were no welfare state equilibrium wages might be higher (although it does *not* follow at all that Tesco profits would be lower!). But the overall impact would be much higher poverty and inequality. Is that not obvious?