Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Politics
4 September 2017

How voters have turned against the net migration target

Sixty-three per cent of the public, including 72 per cent of Conservatives, want the government's “tens of thousands” target scrapped. 

By George Eaton

No immigration policy, it is usually assumed, can be too draconian for the British public. Yet voters have long held more nuanced views than thought. 

By way of confirmation, a new British Future study shows that the majority of the public, including 72 per cent of Conservative voters, oppose the government’s aim of reducing net migration to “tens of thousands a year” (a level last reached in 1997). Some of the opposition reflects the Tories’ failure to meet the target in one of the 64 months since it was introduced. A mere 12 per cent of the public – and 14 per cent of Conservatives – believe it will be achieved by the end of this parliament (2022). Most voters, unsurprisingly, regard the target as an insult to their intelligence. 

But the public’s stance also reflects an awareness that the quality of immigration matters more than the quantity, and that the UK needs immigrants. Among Leave voters, 92 per cent want the number of foreign doctors to remain the same or increase, with a majority also supporting care workers (66 per cent) and fruit pickers (52 per cent). Though 76 per cent of Brexiteers favour a reduction in unskilled migrants, the only specific group they wish to deter are waiters and bartenders. 

Among the public, then, support for the net migration target (which continues to include foreign students) is no higher than among the cabinet. With the exception of Theresa May, no senior member wishes to retain the target (Home Secretary Amber Rudd does her best to avoid mentioning it at all). 

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. Brexit Secretary David Davis, for instance, has conceded that immigration will not invariably fall after the UK leaves the EU. “I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants.” 

Content from our partners
How do we secure the hybrid office?
How materials innovation can help achieve net zero and level-up the UK
Fantastic mental well-being strategies and where to find them

That the public share this view increases the chance that the net migration target will leave No 10 with May. Even before Brexit, net migration has already fallen by 81,000 to 246,000, the lowest recorded level for three years. The pound’s depreciation (which makes British wages less competitive), the spectre of Brexit and a rise in hate crimes and xenophobia are among the main deterrents. Should the government nevertheless seek to further repel migrants, it will be placing itself unambiguously at odds with the public.