GB News paused for migrant bombshell alert – it’s more bad news for Andy Burnham

Prime Minister Andy Burnham faced fresh political pressure after GB News Breakfast interrupted its coverage to highlight figures suggesting that migrant workers accounted for four out of every five additional jobs created in the UK over a decade. The figures, discussed by presenters Ellie Costello and Cameron Walker, have reignited a contentious debate about immigration, employment opportunities for British nationals and the government’s approach to welfare reform.

The intervention put an uncomfortable question at the centre of the political conversation: if the British economy has created millions of additional payroll jobs, why have British nationals accounted for such a comparatively small share of that growth?

The figures come from an analysis by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), which argues that successive governments have become too dependent on overseas recruitment instead of addressing weaknesses in domestic training, workforce participation and economic opportunity. For Burnham, the findings present a difficult political challenge at a time when the government is under pressure to demonstrate that its policies deliver tangible benefits for people who feel left behind.

However, the statistics also require careful interpretation. They measure changes in payroll employment by nationality, not the complete number of people entering work, and do not by themselves establish that migrants have directly displaced British workers. The debate is therefore about more than a headline figure: it concerns the choices governments make about skills, immigration and the future of the labour market.

GB News puts the employment figures under the spotlight

During the programme, Costello and Walker examined the CSJ analysis alongside political commentator Sebastian Salek and Spectator assistant editor Madeline Grant.

The central finding was striking. Between 2014 and the end of 2025, the number of additional payroll jobs held by British nationals increased by approximately 734,000, compared with around 408,000 held by EU nationals and roughly 2.5 million held by non-EU nationals.

In total, the report identified approximately 3.7 million additional payroll jobs over the period. British nationals therefore accounted for only about one in five of the increase, while non-EU nationals represented the largest share.

For critics of the government’s approach, those figures raise questions about whether immigration has become an easy answer to recruitment difficulties that might otherwise require long-term investment in British workers.

Grant argued during the discussion that immigration had, in some circumstances, been used to compensate for deeper problems in the economy and society.

She said the findings demonstrated how immigration reduction needed to be accompanied by welfare reform, adding that employers and governments had often taken the easier option of recruiting from overseas rather than confronting the underlying difficulties.

Her argument was that reducing migration without changing the domestic labour market would not solve the problem. If employers continue to struggle to recruit locally, while some British workers remain outside employment, policymakers must examine why those two conditions exist simultaneously.

That means looking at vocational education, apprenticeships, workplace training, regional investment and the support available to people trying to return to work.

The political significance is clear. A government cannot convincingly promise to reduce reliance on overseas recruitment unless it can also explain how essential industries will find the people they need.

A warning about communities that feel left behind

The CSJ was founded by former Conservative cabinet minister Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who has repeatedly argued that welfare dependency and limited economic opportunity can reinforce one another.

As Walker noted during the broadcast, Duncan Smith believes successive Conservative and Labour governments have relied too readily on immigration instead of improving prospects for disadvantaged communities.

That criticism touches on a sensitive issue in British politics: the difference between the number of jobs available nationally and the opportunities accessible to people in particular towns, regions or social groups.

Andy Burnham was dealth a blow as GB News revealed new job statistics (Image: GB News)

A growing economy does not automatically mean that every community benefits equally. Employers may be recruiting in sectors or locations where local workers lack the required qualifications, while people seeking work may face transport difficulties, health problems, childcare costs or a shortage of suitable training.

In such circumstances, the availability of additional jobs can coexist with persistent economic inactivity.

For communities that have experienced industrial decline, the political frustration can be particularly acute. Residents may see businesses recruiting workers from abroad while local people struggle to find stable employment that pays enough to support a household.

That perception can damage confidence in political institutions, even when the causes are more complicated than a straightforward competition between British and foreign workers.

The government’s challenge is to demonstrate that immigration policy, skills investment and welfare reform are being designed as parts of one coherent strategy rather than as separate responses to different political pressures.

Without that connection, ministers risk being accused of treating the symptoms of labour shortages while leaving their causes unresolved.

The skills gap: a more complicated picture

Salek offered a different perspective during the GB News discussion, warning against treating all migrant employment as evidence that British workers were being overlooked.

He pointed out that some workers arriving through employment visa routes are highly skilled and earn substantial salaries. If UK employers cannot find people with the necessary qualifications at home, he argued, the country has a skills deficit that must be addressed.

That distinction matters. A shortage of engineers, specialist medical staff, technology professionals or other skilled workers cannot necessarily be solved simply by restricting recruitment from overseas. Training takes time, and certain industries may require expertise that cannot be developed quickly enough to meet immediate demand.

Businesses also argue that access to international talent can support investment, expansion and productivity. If employers cannot recruit the staff they need, some may delay projects, reduce services or move investment elsewhere.

But Salek’s point also reinforces the need for a longer-term domestic strategy. If shortages are persistent, policymakers must ask why training provision and workforce planning have failed to keep pace with employers’ needs.

The objective should not be to assume that every job can immediately be filled by a British applicant. It should be to ensure that British workers have a realistic opportunity to acquire the skills required for the jobs their economy creates.

That would require closer coordination between employers, colleges, universities and government departments. Training must reflect actual vacancies rather than simply the number of qualifications being awarded. Apprenticeships need to lead towards sustainable employment, and careers advice must help young people understand which sectors are likely to offer opportunities in the years ahead.

For Burnham’s government, this creates a difficult balancing act. A tougher immigration policy may appeal to voters concerned about migration levels, but it must be accompanied by credible plans to prevent skills shortages from undermining public services and economic growth.

Family migration and the long-term cost to the state

Grant also raised concerns about the potential long-term fiscal implications of workers bringing family members to the UK.

Her argument was that a worker earning a relatively high salary does not necessarily settle the question of the family’s overall contribution to public finances. The calculation can involve housing, healthcare, education, tax payments and future pension entitlements over many years.

She warned that policymakers should consider the consequences over decades, rather than focusing exclusively on the immediate economic benefits of filling a vacancy.

The issue is particularly relevant to debates about Britain’s ageing population and the sustainability of public finances. As the population grows older, demand for pensions, healthcare and social care can increase, putting pressure on government budgets.

However, the overall fiscal impact of migration cannot be determined by salary alone or by assuming that family members will automatically become a financial burden. It depends on employment, earnings, tax contributions, eligibility rules, family circumstances and the use of public services over time.

Migrant workers can contribute through income tax and National Insurance, while their families may also work and pay taxes. Conversely, lower earnings, periods of unemployment and future service requirements can affect the balance.

A serious assessment therefore needs to examine the complete picture, including both contributions and costs, rather than relying on a single statistic.

Nevertheless, Grant’s broader question remains politically significant: is the government evaluating the long-term consequences of its migration policies, or concentrating primarily on immediate recruitment needs?

That question is likely to remain central as ministers seek to reconcile economic growth with pressure on public services and public concern about migration.

Government defends its approach

During the programme, Costello read a statement setting out the government’s position.

The statement said that the overwhelming majority of the UK workforce consisted of British nationals and pointed to a skills-based migration system intended to prioritise domestic workers while welcoming highly skilled talent where the economy required it.

It also highlighted welfare reform and the government’s youth guarantee, which aims to create employment opportunities for young people, alongside a stated £3.5 billion investment to help disabled people and those with long-term health conditions move closer to the labour market.

That response reflects the government’s central argument: immigration figures must be considered alongside the size of the overall workforce, the needs of employers and efforts to help more people enter employment.

Ministers can also point out that a rise in the number of jobs held by overseas nationals does not automatically establish that an equivalent number of jobs were taken away from British workers. The figures describe who holds additional payroll positions; they do not independently reveal what would have happened without migration.

Even so, the government’s defence faces a test of credibility. Announcing training schemes and employment initiatives is one thing. Demonstrating that they are delivering measurable improvements in recruitment, skills and sustained employment is another.

If the government wants to convince sceptical voters that British workers are being given a fair opportunity, it will need to show evidence of progress.

Welfare spending adds to the pressure

The employment debate has also been sharpened by the CSJ’s warning that annual spending on working-age benefits has risen by £50 billion in real terms since 2019–20.

The think tank argues that successive governments have relied on low-skilled migration to fill vacancies while failing to address the barriers keeping some people outside the workforce.

These are connected but distinct questions. Benefit expenditure can rise because of changes in eligibility, payment rates, population needs, unemployment, disability, health-related inactivity and other factors. The increase alone does not prove that immigration caused higher spending or that benefit recipients could readily fill existing vacancies.

Nonetheless, the figures strengthen calls for a more integrated approach to employment policy.

A successful reform programme would need to identify which people can realistically return to work, what support they require and whether suitable jobs exist in their areas. It would also need to distinguish between people who need temporary assistance and those whose health or caring responsibilities limit their ability to work.

For younger people, access to apprenticeships, entry-level positions and reliable career pathways may be crucial. For older workers, retraining and flexible working arrangements could make a difference. For people with disabilities or long-term health conditions, effective support must address practical barriers rather than simply impose pressure to find employment.

The government’s youth guarantee and its investment in helping disabled people approach the labour market will therefore be judged by their results, not just their announced funding.

Another political test for Andy Burnham

The GB News segment has given opponents of Burnham’s government a powerful headline, but the underlying challenge is more substantial than a single television interruption.

The CSJ figures have revived a debate about whether Britain’s employment system is delivering enough opportunities for its own citizens and whether immigration has been used to compensate for weaknesses in domestic workforce policy.

For Burnham, the danger is that voters could interpret the numbers as evidence that the government has prioritised employers’ immediate recruitment needs over the long-term prospects of British workers. That perception could become more damaging if ministers cannot demonstrate improvements in training, employment participation and regional opportunity.

Yet an effective response cannot rest on slogans alone. Restricting migration without addressing genuine skills shortages could create new problems, while expanding recruitment from overseas without investing in domestic training could leave existing weaknesses untouched.

The government’s task is to show how it intends to reconcile those competing priorities: preparing British workers for available jobs, supporting people who need help entering employment, maintaining essential services and ensuring migration policy serves a clearly defined economic purpose.

The figures discussed on GB News do not settle every question about immigration or employment. They do, however, place an uncomfortable issue firmly on the political agenda.

If the government wants to convince the public that it has learned from the policies of previous administrations, it will need to demonstrate that its approach is different in practice, not merely in language.

For Burnham, that means more than defending the overall strength of the UK workforce. It means explaining how the next generation of British workers will gain the skills, opportunities and confidence to participate in the country’s economic future.

Until ministers can show convincing progress, the debate over who benefits from Britain’s job growth is unlikely to disappear.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.