Will the home secretary listen to what the public really wants on immigration?

As ex-head of the UK border force Brodie Clark & CEO of the UKBA Rob Whiteman undergo interviews by the Home Affairs Select Committee today which threaten further embarrassment to the Home Secretary about the relaxing of immigration checks at the UK borders, the President of YouGov Peter Kellner has offered up a pointed analysis of the connundrum that the government now finds itself in.

According to YouGov polling for the Sunday Times this week, most voters think that Theresa May should resign as Home Secretary. The polling data that YouGov has been gathering indicates that public opinion remains skeptical about this government's performance on immigration – whilst 78% of those polled recently state that they support the aim of cutting net immigration, only 16% believe the coalition government will actually deliver on this.

Whatever happens to May, however, Kellner emphasises some important messages for policy-makers who will be wondering how to win back public faith in immigration controls. We will no doubt hear more tough talk from government in coming days, embarking on damage limitation. But will they look at the analysis behind the public opinion polling headlines?

MigrationWatch attracts much attention for the picture it paints of a public baying for less immigration at any cost. But as identified by public opinion experts including Dr Rob Ford at Manchester University, polling results show that people are much less concerned by any direct impacts of immigration on themselves and their families than on the country as a whole.

When it comes to political management of immigration, people hate tough talk that is not met by action – ministers who say one thing and are then exposed as having possibly done another behind the scenes risk looking dishonest and untrustworthy. As Kellner describes:

[The public] prefer modest policies that work to extravagant promises that they don’t believe. In an ideal world, they want political leaders who pursue popular goals, tell the truth and achieve what they vow. But when asked to choose between the right ambition and honest politics, it is clear what wins public respect: almost invariably, probity trumps policy.

Given all this, the latest trouble at the Home Office could be an opportunity for ministers to move towards a more realistic, measured message - and measures - on immigration, which do not overstate the capacity of the government to control something which is at least partly uncontrollable. A change in tack to better reflect the complexities of public opinion on this issue rather than simplified tough talk might actually help ministers to avoid losing more face on immigration management in the future, and build a longer-term platform for immigration policies which meet genuine needs and interests from immigration in the UK.

So will they do it?