We've just completed the largest ever survey into British attitudes to immigration – and this is what we found

We found that most people are not polarised, and instead are 'balancers' in terms of attitudes toward immigration. But we also found the scales of balance are weighed differently from place to place

Our survey showed that immigration should never be addressed in isolation from other policies (Getty)

In a climate of post-Brexit division, immigration is not something most of us would willingly discuss with our own relatives, let alone the whole country. But 16,410 miles, 130 discussions about migration and 60 towns and cities later, I have done just that.

The National Conversation on Immigration, run jointly by HOPE not hate and British Future, has been the largest ever public engagement on migration, with more than 19,950 people weighing in on the debate. Modelled on the Canadian government’s approach, we’ve travelled from Penzance to Shetland, Ballymena to Folkestone, and surveyed more than 13,000 people.

Our report finds that while the online debate remains polarised, dominated by very anti- and pro-migration voices, most people don’t feel that either side of the political shouting match represents their views.

The vast majority of people are “balancers”. They don’t see immigration as a black and white issue, but see both positive impacts alongside challenges. And in all of our discussions, people came to a consensus for an immigration system that is fair to migrants as well as the communities that receive them; one that balances contribution with control.

However, we also found the scales of this balance are weighted differently from place to place.

We found that a “local lens” frames immigration as a national issue, reflecting everyday experiences. Concerns about the labour market impacts of immigration were more prevalent in places where concerns were tied to unscrupulous behaviour by employers or businesses. In the southeast, a scarcity of housing meant a common demand was greater control over rates of immigration and over migrants’ access to social housing.

For many, our conversations were about much more than immigration, and participants often told a broader story about dissatisfaction with their own lives.

Attitudes to immigration were often constructed through a culmination of many different issues. This was most profound in areas where people held the most hostile views on immigration, and people who were more confident about their own opportunities in life were less likely to see immigration as a threat. As a participant in Basildon put it: “It’s huge chips on shoulders, isn’t it?”

In Kidderminster, for example, we were told that “the good times have gone”. Lost industry and changing work, local decline, alongside changing neighbourhoods and increased diversity means that identity issues and people’s standard of living become intertwined.

Faded industries once shaped the identity of a city or town: coal and steel in Merthyr Tydfil, footwear in Northampton or fishing in Grimsby. Tradition is revived in places which have seen rapid change. Resistance to change is not only about a decline in welfare and opportunity, but these anxieties trigger a defensive instinct to protect and reassert a social position. Media stories about bans on Easter eggs or nativity plays stick with people, because they resonate with a broader worldview in which something has unfairly been taken away. A sense that British or English identity is waning becomes more pronounced.

The physical isolation of some of Britain’s coastal and post-industrial communities plays a role. Places which are geographically isolated or have poor transport links may become less outward-looking, with their residents less exposed to people from different backgrounds.

Our conversations revealed that immigration policy cannot operate in isolation from other policy areas, such as housing and education, and our report makes more than 40 recommendations for regaining public trust on immigration. Challenging rogue landlords, extending ESOL provision and improving the performance of the Home Office will all have a significant impact in communities where residents are struggling to accommodate newcomers.

Our conversations showed that a consensus on immigration is possible, but they also showed that addressing the strong tide of anti-immigration sentiment will take significant efforts. In areas where socioeconomic conditions are more favourable, and there are greater opportunities, less work will be needed to reach consensus on immigration than in areas where there is high level deprivation and isolation.

But where resentment at the conditions of everyday life drives hostility, root causes need to be addressed. Our conversations were often about more than immigration, but about opportunity, about identity and about hope. Our solutions must also be more.

Rosie Carter is research officer at HOPE not hate and co-author of the National Conversation on Immigration