The Observer recently reported on a YouGov poll that shows ‘Opposition to immigration drops when people are told about the economic benefits of net migration’. Indeed, as the poll shows we see a nine per cent reduction in opposition.

This will no doubt reassure some that if we tell people they are wrong to fear immigration all will be well and the political ‘symptoms’ of this fear – a rise in the British National party vote in working-class areas when Labour was unpopular in the 2006-10 period and the current rise of the United Kingdom Independence party – will just melt away when these facts are spelled out.

The only problem is that the ‘facts’ do not seem to explain why the polls shows that 54 per cent still hold negative views on this issue after being provided with information. Indeed, those voters most sceptical over immigration are often more prepared to suspend their belief on issues in front of them and hold views that some will think are completely unscientific. The recent intense analysis of the currently large UKIP vote enables us to explore these views in more detail.

While it is easily provable that it is highly unlikely ‘29 million Bulgarians and Romanians will all move here at once’ as UKIP has claimed in leaflets, the rejection of that fact does not make a difference to people voting for them. As the Spectator reported, it is not just about competition for jobs, for some people it will simply be about working with people you know:

‘No mate, I’d prefer to sign on than do that. I don’t want to work in like no cornfield. I don’t want to work with a load of foreigners.’

We have to ask ourselves, how does a ‘factual’ narrative address immigration concerns when the narrative we hear on it is one that some people reading this might find ‘irrational’ such as:

• ‘We were never asked about allowing it’

• ‘We can’t say what we really think’

Thus whether it was the British National party in the past making the most of the issue, or currently UKIP, immigration  is not going to go away as a fundamental political issue in the coming decade and we have to develop a proper framework for engaging with those fears that goes beyond utilising factual ‘myth-busting’ that simply does not work.

If it is not facts that work, then what does?

There is a need to understand the role of emotions, values and social networks in defining people’s motivations on this issue.

None of us are robots; emotions count! As MINDSPACE, the research bible of the government’s Nudge Unit tells us ‘our emotional associations can powerfully shape our actions’. We see it in the rhetoric of our political heroes and demagogues. We see it in the sentimentality of the Labour movement and the anger and collective elation expressed by the new ‘young Turks’ in Taksim Square and Gezi Park. In the case of immigration, applying rational argument to people who are fearful often comes across as telling people they are ‘wrong’. These are often people who from the demographic data on their educational attainment may have had a bad experience of being told they were ‘wrong’ through a lot of their own schooling a long time ago and so do not take kindly to receiving it from us post-education!

Research by Hope not Hate and also by The Campaign Company with Cultural Dynamics show that people’s values are also additional drivers. Our values shape our attitudes towards long-term political issues and crucially explain what will most motivate us to change our views. Those ‘cultural traditionalists’ who hold safety and security values are more likely to hold strong negative views on immigration, but this in turn influences those with ‘outer directed’ values too, who often develop a judgement from what they perceive others are thinking. Only those who hold more ‘cosmopolitan’ ‘inner directed’ values tend to hold a positive view on immigration. Polls that use standard demographics of recent voting, gender, age, region and occupational class to classify people tend not to cover segmentation around motivational values that give us much stronger pointers as to how to respond.

John Mann MP recently writing about UKIP touched on the issue of social networks, in driving these ‘irrational’ responses to the facts, pointing out:

• there are neighbour clusters of UKIP voters – one neighbour persuading the others
• areas with a popular local pub are more likely to vote UKIP

The rise of ‘big data’ and useful software now means it is much easier to map those types of social networks as recent pioneering work around communities and employability and resilience show.

Concern over immigration is strong with people who do not trust politicians or politics as usual, are sceptical of mainstream politics and show fear, distrust and pessimism towards change. This means they will be resistant to an optimistic change message as it does not accord to the world around them. For them home, family and work are the reality. They look back approvingly to a mythical past which is, however, ‘real’ to them.

As European research by DEREX  shows those concerned over the issue of immigration are looking to people with simple answers to complex questions. Authoritarian leadership and a plebiscitary approach to making decisions appeal to them.

And Michael Ashcroft’s polling notes of those falling to UKIP on the issue on immigration:

‘They have effectively disengaged from the hard choices inherent in the democratic process, though they still want formally to take part in it. They say that being remote from power means UKIP can say what they really think, though there is a tacit acknowledgment that it also means they can say what they like and never be called on it. Not only does it not matter that UKIP will not get the chance to deliver its policies, that is part of the attraction: their diagnosis cannot be gainsaid. Now that the Liberal Democrats have been exposed – and have exposed their supporters – to the realities of government, UKIP is the only party (at least this side of the Greens) by which nobody can feel let down’.

Instead of us just bemoaning this unwillingness of people to listen to the facts there is a lot that can be done by public bodies, campaigners and political parties to engage on the issue.

Local government has been ahead of the curve on addressing issues around low trust and scepticism as research, past strategies and evaluation shows. As a result trust in local institutions is actually quite high whatever people think of national and international institutions and the Local Government Association is currently consulting on how to develop this approach further.

The evidence from those local government projects is that, to tackle disengagement, there is a practical agenda around empathic conversations, authentic advocates, relational organisation and matching words with tangible locally applicable deeds. This should be instead of talking in big picture intangibles, which people on the left of centre do tend to start with, understandably reflecting deeply held universalist and ethically driven values. Empathy, however, first of all requires us to understand and think and speak beyond our own values set.

This approach can reach out to deeply disaffected voters who hold cultural traditionalist values – where scepticism over immigration is a badge of identity – and who feel they are not listened to and as a result have a strong sense of powerlessness. A responsive approach can include:

• An initial engagement message around ‘you can say what you really think, Labour will be listening’. Ed Miliband’s recent conversation on the election trail on the subject was a start, but much more important was that people could see the voter was allowed to express his view. This is a massive improvement on his predecessor’s conversation with Mrs Duffy in 2010, the elements of which I broke down in detail here. We need more of this approach.
• Engage at the level of values not just policy – which is the mistake David Cameron is making with a range of policy positions which will come back to haunt him in 2015. John Denham MP has recently been trying to develop ‘One Nation Values’ which could be developed further as a more localised values driven narrative along the lines of:
  • ‘Everyone must be seen to play by the same rules.’
  • ‘Changes are made to ensure you get value for money; but we always conserve the things people hold dear.’
  • ‘Everyone gets more opportunity, but there should be less privilege for the favoured few, whoever they might be.’
  • ‘You will get rewarded for what you put in, not how much you can take out.’
• More research in terms of MOSAIC and values segmentation to break down voters into communicable segments on the immigration issue. People in the most vulnerable groups will be motivated to respond in different ways around security, safety, self-regard and incentives and we need to reach out to them in the right way.
• More social network mapping to understand how negative views spread and what interventions are effective in responding to them.
• Labour party training of our doorstep and phone campaigners in how to engage with voters on the issue of immigration based on the principles outlined above.
• Ensuring programmes such as community organising activity reach out to volunteers in the white working class with safety and security values and not just the generally young ‘outer directed’ segments that tend to be attracted to it.
• Continuing the more empathic training of staff in public services that some councils are already doing. This is a good practical example of how a ‘relational state‘ should actually operate on the ground, rather than as a theoretical construct, as it requires public sector staff to have this empathic skill set to engage with distrustful members of the public.
• Identifying authentic influencer/endorsers in the community who can dispel some of the local and national stories that attract people to simple solutions over immigration. They can also crucially feed back the fears they hear, however irrational they might be. The aim is not to create automatons parroting the official line but to create social networks and space to create the ‘benefit of the doubt’ by the disengaged and sceptical as that then gets a ‘foot in the door’ to enable facts we really do enjoy utilising to then be conveyed. Monty Python understood this approach to communications over 30 years ago!

————————————————————————————————-

Charlie Mansell is research and development officer for The Campaign Company, a member of the London regional board and a CLP chair. He is a former councillor and parliamentary and London assembly candidate.

————————————————————————————————-

Photo: jon smith.