People do feel like strangers in Britain - but it's not just because of migration, polling finds
Some claimed this was a controversial and dangerous stance - drawing parallels with Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech.
But research released today suggests close to half of those in Great Britain feel like "strangers" in their own country.
The survey, carried out by pollsters at More In Common, asked 13,464 people in Great Britain for their feelings on the matter.
And what is even more surprising is that the survey was carried out over a month before Sir Keir 's speech.
The research is only being released today, and it is understood that Downing Street had not seen it before the prime minister's speech.
However it will likely be welcomed as a justification of a position aimed outside of Westminster.
2:09
Isolation linked to wealth
The prime minister's concerns about Great Britain being an "island of strangers" was inextricably linked to rising immigration.
But the research out today shows the isolation felt by many is strongly linked to wealth - with the poorest in the country more likely to feel like strangers.
The cost of living was mentioned as a contributory factor by many of those asked.
And when it comes to ethnic breakdown of those saying they feel like strangers, Asian or Asian British people were more likely than either white or black British people to say they felt separate.
Amy, a teacher from Runcorn, told researchers that when "your money's all going on your bills and the boring stuff like food and gas and leccy and petrol" there is nothing left "to do for ourselves".
Who is Starmer targeting?
Those who criticised Sir Keir for his "strangers" speech tended to accuse the prime minister of appealing to supporters of Reform or the Conservatives.
Suspended Labour MP Zarah Sultana went as far as to claim the speech was a "foghorn to the far right".
The analysis from More in Common found that people who supported Reform and the Conservatives last year are indeed much more likely to feel like strangers in the UK.
While Labour, Lib Dem and Green supporters are all less likely to feel like strangers, around a third of them do still agree with the statement that they "sometimes feel like a stranger in my own country".
And the polling also found that Reform and Conservative voters are much more likely to think that multiculturalism threatens national identity, while supporters of the other three parties tend to largely believe multiculturalism is a benefit.
Across the board, supporters of all parties were more likely than not to think that everyone needs to do more to encourage integration between people of different ethnic backgrounds - and similarly a majority think it is everyone's responsibility to do so.
Luke Tryl, the UK director of More in Common, said: "The prime minister's warning that we risk becoming an 'island of strangers' resonates with millions who say they feel disconnected from those around them.
"But it would be a mistake to say that immigration and lack of integration are the sole causes of our fragmenting social fabric."
John McDonnell, another former Labour MP, now suspended, told Sky News that having politicians "exploit" resentment fuelled by economic circumstance to shift "the blame onto migrants just exacerbates the problem".
He said the government needs to "tackle the insecurity of people's lives and you lay the foundations of a cohesive society".
With Reform now leading in the polls and the collapse of support for Sir Keir since becoming prime minister, it is unsurprising that what he says seems to match up with what turquoise voters feel.
Work from home alone
The post-pandemic shift to working from home and spending more time alone has also been blamed for an increased feeling of isolation.
Ruqayyah, a support worker from Peterborough, said the shift to home offices had "destroyed our young generation".
But there are many other reasons that people feel separate from the rest of their country.
Young people are less trusting of strangers, and there is also a deep discontent with the political system.
Many think the system is "rigged" in favour of the wealthy - although this belief is less common the higher the level of education someone has completed.
The tension that exploded during last year's riots are also highlighted, and many people are worried about religious differences - a situation exacerbated by foreign conflicts like in the Middle East and between India and Pakistan.
The research was carried out alongside the campaign group Citizens UK and UCL.
Matthew Bolton, executive director of Citizens UK, said: "We all saw what can happen last summer when anger and mistrust boil over and threaten the fabric of our society.
"The answers to this don't lie in Whitehall.
"By listening to people closest to the ground about what causes division and what builds unity in their neighbourhood, we can build a blueprint for cohesion rooted in local leadership and community power."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ex-Labour whip admits ‘sleepless nights' over welfare cuts resignation
Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft has urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to listen more closely to his MPs, who she says reflect the worries of their constituents. Ms Foxcroft resigned as a government whip in June over concerns about proposed welfare cuts, specifically to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for disabled people. She said she could not support or whip for the proposals, which were later abandoned after a significant rebellion within the party. Ms Foxcroft described her decision to resign as difficult, causing "sleepless nights", and occurring during a challenging personal period that included the death of her father. Sir Keir's support among the public reached new depths of minus 43 after the £5bn welfare U-turn, according to polling published in July.
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Wes Streeting said to be eyeing up No 10 – but how will doctors' strikes affect his chances?
From Jeremy Hunt and Alan Johnson to Andy Burnham and Ken Clarke, politics is littered with ambitious former health secretaries who did not make it into No 10. The aspirational current health secretary, Wes Streeting, is believed by colleagues to have his sights on bucking that trend, and one day replacing Keir Starmer in Downing Street. However, the resident doctors' strike represents a moment of danger for the health secretary, with the medics pitching themselves against the government by demanding a return to the real-terms pay levels of 2008. It would be 25% salary increase on top of a 29% rise over the past three years, with the government outright refusing to open pay discussions and restricting any talks to negotiating on other benefits such as pensions. Streeting has personally taken a robust approach to the doctors – telling them 'if you go to war with us, you'll lose' – which on some levels appears in tune with the public mood. Polling from More in Common shows that overall, people do not back the doctors' strikes, and feeling has turned further against increasing the pay of medics over the past two weeks. Support for them dropped from -10% to -15% while the industrial action was going on. Luke Tryl, the director of More In Common, said: 'The biggest shift between the two weeks is people are now more likely to say the government should not do whatever it takes to end the strikes. My previous view was that it didn't really matter if the public were on side with Streeting against the doctors because the doctors could just bring the NHS to a halt, people would just rather it worked. Even two weeks ago people thought that, but the fact that it has now flipped is interesting and people are more likely to say 'dig in'. 'I do think it's because Wes Streeting has been out there making the arguments. In focus groups, it seems like his message has landed. People are slightly, for the first time, more likely to say resident doctors are paid too much rather than too little.' However, there are two difficult caveats in the data for Streeting. The first is that most of the public blame the government for the strikes in the first place, with 39% saying it is ministers' fault, 31% pointing the figure at resident doctors and 11% at hospital management. The second is that Labour voters are now the only political grouping who back the striking doctors, with a net 3% in favour of the strikes, down from a net 12% in favour before they started. Labour members tend to be even more sympathetic to strike action than Labour voters, so this group of people who choose the next party leader are not on board with the government's arguments. And while there are no public rumblings of discontent about Streeting's approach, some Labour MPs question the wisdom of pitching the industrial dispute as a battle – rather than taking a more emollient tone. 'Jeremy Hunt never really recovered from his bruising encounter with the doctors,' says one Labour MP. 'It never looks good to be talking about 'war' with public servants in a caring profession.' However, Labour sources say there is a huge difference between now and the strikes that Hunt was opposing in 2016 – then the first industrial action taken in more than 40 years, which centred more around shift patterns and contract changes. 'The fact that public opinion has shifted so far against resident doctor strikes shows how different the landscape is,' the senior source said. 'The truth is that, slowly but surely, people are noticing some of their family and friends are being seen quicker by the NHS. They don't want to go backwards. 'The Tories drove the NHS into the ground. In a large part, the malaise felt by resident doctors is that they're just sick and tired of how poor working conditions have become over the 15 years of Tory government. 'But the BMA's leadership should recognise how they now have a government that is far different to deal with. Two above-inflation pay rises, the biggest hike in the public sector, work already under way on improving working conditions and so much more we can do if they chose to actually just work with government.' Ultimately, though, the wider mood about the strikes and Streeting's leadership through the turmoil is likely to depend on how the NHS manages to hold up operationally. NHS sources said the first five-day strike had led to some services being cancelled but many fewer than on previous occasions, with trust leaders suggesting appointments and operations were at about 90-95% of usual activity. Figures for how many doctors turned out on strike were not yet available but sources suggested it had been patchy, and that trusts were 'better at managing' the situation as they had practice now from prior strikes. The British Medical Association, the doctors' union behind the strikes, has said hospitals were opting for unsafe cover rather than cancellation of operations, in a 'reckless' approach to the strikes. But if Streeting can oversee minimal disruption in the NHS while doctors are on strike or reach a deal on other financial conditions, then the government could emerge strengthened. And while Labour voters support the doctors' aims, they also like to see a government demonstrating operational competence and avoiding crisis. Tryl says: 'If Labour fails on their mission of reducing waiting lists, that's what will cut through and would damage Wes. But equally, if he holds firm and wins, it could help the government. 'There is a sense that government isn't in control any more is such a big driver of the 'broken Britain' mood, it kind of goes beyond individual services. If Wes can show the government is in control on this, that could end up helping.'
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home
WASHINGTON, Aug 2 (Reuters) - The Trump administration says that some serious criminals need to be deported to third countries because even their home countries won't accept them. But a review of recent cases shows that at least five men threatened with such a fate were sent to their native countries within weeks. President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, two sub-Saharan African nations. Immigrants convicted of crimes typically first serve their U.S. sentences before being deported. This appeared to be the case with the eight men deported to South Sudan and five to Eswatini, although some had been released years earlier. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in June that third-country deportations allow them to deport people 'so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won't take them back.' Critics have countered that it's not clear the U.S. tried to return the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini to their home countries and that the deportations were unnecessarily cruel. Reuters found that at least five men threatened with deportation to Libya in May were sent to their home countries weeks later, according to interviews with two of the men, a family member and attorneys. After a U.S. judge blocked the Trump administration from sending them to Libya, two men from Vietnam, two men from Laos and a man from Mexico were all deported to their home nations. The deportations have not previously been reported. DHS did not comment on the removals. Reuters could not determine if their home countries initially refused to take them or why the U.S. tried to send them to Libya. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contested that the home countries of criminals deported to third countries were willing to take them back, but did not provide details on any attempts to return the five men home before they were threatened with deportation to Libya. 'If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, you could end up in CECOT, Alligator Alcatraz, Guantanamo Bay, or South Sudan or another third country,' McLaughlin said in a statement, referencing El Salvador's maximum-security prison and a detention center in the subtropical Florida Everglades. DHS did not respond to a request for the number of third-country deportations since Trump took office on January 20, although there have been thousands to Mexico and hundreds to other countries. The eight men sent to South Sudan were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan and Vietnam, according to DHS. The man DHS said was from South Sudan had a deportation order to Sudan, according to a court filing. The five men sent to Eswatini were from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen, according to DHS. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini were 'the worst of the worst' and included people convicted in the United States of child sex abuse and murder. 'American communities are safer with these heinous illegal criminals gone,' Jackson said in a statement. The Laos government did not respond to requests for comment regarding the men threatened with deportation to Libya and those deported to South Sudan and Eswatini. Vietnam's foreign ministry spokesperson said on July 17 that the government was verifying information regarding the South Sudan deportation but did not provide additional comment to Reuters. The government of Mexico did not comment. The Trump administration acknowledged in a May 22 court filing that the man from Myanmar had valid travel documents to return to his home country but he was deported to South Sudan anyway. DHS said the man had been convicted of sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting. Eswatini's government said on Tuesday that it was still holding the five migrants sent there in isolated prison units under the deal with the Trump administration. The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is still being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Critics say the removals aim to stoke fear among migrants and encourage them to 'self deport' to their home countries rather than be sent to distant countries they have no connection with. 'This is a message that you may end up with a very random outcome that you're going to like a lot less than if you elect to leave under your own steam,' said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. Internal U.S. immigration enforcement guidance issued in July said migrants could be deported to countries that had not provided diplomatic assurances of their safety in as little as six hours. While the administration has highlighted the deportations of convicted criminals to African countries, it has also sent asylum-seeking Afghans, Russians and others to Panama and Costa Rica. The Trump administration deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were held in the country's CECOT prison without access to attorneys until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. More than 5,700 non-Mexican migrants have been deported to Mexico since Trump took office, according to Mexican government data, continuing a policy that began under former President Joe Biden. The fact that one Mexican man was deported to South Sudan and another threatened with deportation to Libya suggests that the Trump administration did not try to send them to their home countries, according to Trina Realmuto, executive director at the pro-immigrant National Immigration Litigation Alliance. 'Mexico historically accepts back its own citizens,' said Realmuto, one of the attorneys representing migrants in the lawsuit contesting third-country deportations. The eight men deported to South Sudan included Mexican national Jesus Munoz Gutierrez, who had served a sentence in the U.S. for second-degree murder and was directly taken into federal immigration custody afterward, according to Realmuto. Court records show Munoz stabbed and killed a roommate during a fight in 2004. When the Trump administration first initiated the deportation in late May, Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government had not been informed. 'If he does want to be repatriated, then the United States would have to bring him to Mexico,' Sheinbaum said at the time. His sister, Guadalupe Gutierrez, said in an interview that she didn't understand why he was sent to South Sudan, where he is currently in custody. She said Mexico is trying to get her brother home. 'Mexico never rejected my brother,' Gutierrez said. Immigration hardliners see the third-country removals as a way to deal with immigration offenders who can't easily be deported and could pose a threat to the U.S. public. "The Trump administration is prioritizing the safety of American communities over the comfort of these deportees,' said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of immigration. The Trump administration in July pressed other African nations to take migrants and has asked the Pacific Islands nation of Palau, among others. Under U.S. law, federal immigration officials can deport someone to a country other than their place of citizenship when all other efforts are 'impracticable, inadvisable or impossible.' Immigration officials must first try to send an immigrant back to their home country, and if they fail, then to a country with which they have a connection, such as where they lived or were born. For a Lao man who was almost deported to Libya in early May, hearing about the renewed third-country deportations took him back to his own close call. In an interview from Laos granted on condition of anonymity because of fears for his safety, he asked why the U.S. was 'using us as a pawn?' His attorney said the man had served a prison sentence for a felony. Reuters could not establish what he was convicted of. He recalled officials telling him to sign his deportation order to Libya, which he refused, telling them he wanted to be sent to Laos instead. They told him he would be deported to Libya regardless of whether he signed or not, he said. DHS did not comment on the allegations. The man, who came to the United States in the early 1980s as a refugee when he was four years old, said he was now trying to learn the Lao language and adapt to his new life, 'taking it day by day.'
