The writer is director of British Future, a think tank. His new book is “How to be a Patriot”
There is a simplistic populist narrative about high immigration: a story of betrayal. The claim is that the political and economic elites ignore the persistent public demand for less immigration. But changing attitudes towards immigration make that story less and less plausible.
Net migration figures to be released next week are expected to be the highest yet, rising further above the most recent figure of just over half a million. This creates a headache for a government that pledged to reduce the overall numbers. Immigration in 2022 was exceptionally high for exceptional reasons, with 200,000 Ukrainians arriving in Britain last spring. But increased immigration is also a matter of political choice, not just circumstance.
Brexit gave UK governments more control over immigration. A major restrictive change, the end of EU free movement, has been offset by almost all other policy options being liberalizing.
British Future has tracked public attitudes to immigration over the past decade. Attitudes towards its economic and cultural impacts have become more positive. Historically, two-thirds of people supported reducing immigration levels, regardless of whether net migration was negative or at record levels. Despite high migration, support for reducing overall numbers has waned and become more selective than ever.
Why has public attitude changed? More control has changed the debate. The question is no longer ‘open or closed’ but a range of different options – about students, NHS and health workers, bankers and seasonal fruit pickers. If there is a control dividend, it does not apply to the chaos visible on the small boats crossing the Channel, where Rishi Sunak is making promises he cannot keep.
Although attitudes towards immigration have softened, they remain polarized. Almost half of the public (42% in 2022) would still like to see overall figures fall. About a quarter are honest reducers. A fourth opponent wants immigration to increase further. Only 5% expressed this view a decade ago. Some of those with more liberal views – who lament the end of free movement – have the mistaken perception that immigration has fallen after Brexit.
But most people are more interested in control than reduction, so consider immigration on a case-by-case basis. The irony is that government policy choices closely map public attitudes. Only one in 10 people think we have taken in too many refugees from Ukraine. The idea of reducing visas for the NHS or social care is equally unpopular: only 12% would restrict visas for the health service. Only 17 percent are in favor of reducing the number of fruit pickers.
There are three possible policy responses to high levels of immigration. Any credible call to cut the numbers depends on specifying what needs to be cut. Even the most basic math dictates that it will not be possible to achieve anything even close to the net figure of 100,000 without reducing immigration which is widely popular. Any serious effort would mean reversing almost all of Boris Johnson’s typically “cakeist” immigration policies, saying he wants to reduce numbers, while pursuing policies that would in practice maintain or increase them.
Second, the government could opt for “continuity cakeism” and try to weather the damage to public confidence from broken promises. One mitigation is that Tory voters are also pie: six in 10 would cut the overall number, although support for cuts falls below a third for any specific work or study route. (By contrast, two-thirds of Labor voters do not want to cut overall levels at all).
A third approach would accept that immigration is high and seek to manage it well. Maintaining consent for the financial gains it brings also depends on better managing the pressures. The impact on housing remains, rationally, the most widespread public concern. Corporate advocates need a more nuanced public voice. A response to record levels of immigration that sounds like “the only problem is that there aren’t any more” seems tone-deaf. Employers are not paying enough attention to employment rates among large numbers of people arriving in Britain on routes outside the points-based system (these, who have the right to work, include refugees, those from Hong Kong and Ukraine, with family visas). , students and dependents.)
If the populist story on immigration were true, a government could win huge plaudits simply by reversing all its pragmatic liberalizing policy choices from 2019. But the cries of pain from the NHS, universities, farmers and the Treasury given the fiscal loss, would not be tolerated by the public. The overall figures are much higher than those predicted by the government. Making decisions about whether the gains from greater migration outweigh that political pain is what control looks like.
