0 
0 Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is director of British Future, a think-tank
For most voters, 2024 will not be an immigration election — though this could be called the “immigration parliament”. It has seen the biggest changes in both policies and immigration flows for decades. After the post-Brexit system delivered record increases in immigration — partly by policy design, partly by accident — the government’s pre-election aim is now to deliver the biggest-ever reductions in immigration numbers.
The volatile swings in language and policy have left few people impressed, whatever their views on immigration. Satisfaction with the government’s handling of the issue has fallen to just 9 per cent, according to the latest Ipsos/British Future Immigration Attitudes Tracker, published on Monday. The tracker has run since 2015 and the 69 per cent level of dissatisfaction is a new record in that period.
Rishi Sunak faces enormously more pressure than Keir Starmer on immigration this side of the election. Immigration, the public’s fourth priority overall, ranks as the third most important issue for Conservative voters — but only 12th for the broader group planning to vote Labour. This partisan divide is a new feature in immigration attitudes, showing that elite political and media cues matter in shaping views. Yet if this is a “time for a change” election, that will be driven primarily by voters with other priorities — the economy, the cost of living and public services. Meanwhile, those who prioritise immigration are split over how to express their frustration at the ballot box, reflected in Reform’s challenge to the Conservatives from the right.
All parties struggle for trust on immigration. But it is not the case that the parties and politicians with the toughest message are more popular than their rivals. Rather, trust is dispersed across the party political spectrum by different sections of the electorate — those with liberal or restrictionist views, as well as the large “balancer” group in between that sees both pressures and gains.
Just over a quarter of those surveyed trust Reform UK on immigration. The party appeals to those with the toughest views but struggles with that balancer middle, as well as those with more liberal views. The Greens and Liberal Democrats — both with 24 per cent trust on immigration — are not far behind, with the mirror image of support and scepticism. The Conservatives are trusted on the issue by 22 per cent.
So it is Labour across Britain, and the SNP in Scotland, who have the least negative ratings, with Labour on 31 per cent trust and 51 per cent distrust. The party’s historically unusual lead on immigration is because it is trusted by two-thirds of those intending to vote Labour, while Conservative voters are frustrated at Sunak’s failures to stop the boats or to reduce immigration levels.
Seven out of 10 Tories want lower immigration, with 52 per cent wanting large reductions. But when asked to identify where those cuts might fall, most are controllers rather than reducers. Fewer than a quarter of them would reduce visas for nurses, doctors or care home workers, who accounted for nearly half the work visas issued last year. More would favour an increase in the numbers coming to do those jobs.
Starmer’s challenge is different. Labour voters are equally likely to cite a lack of compassion towards migrants as the lack of control over small boats as reasons for dissatisfaction. Four out of 10 Labour voters would like to see overall numbers reduced but most are content with current levels, even at this time of near-record net immigration.
From opposition, Starmer can speak to the broad coalition of dissatisfaction with the government, for example attacking its Rwanda plan as ineffective and harsh. His challenge in office would be to show that he has a better plan that can combine control with compassion. If the polls are right, Starmer will inherit the dilemmas of control — and how to secure public consent in balancing the pressures and gains of immigration.
