“You can’t communicate your way out of bad policy” has been ringing in my ears for months after Dr Albena Azmanova gave this answer to my question about how we use narrative to put the far-right back in its box (and throw away the key).
My thinking was that if political rhetoric is a driver for racist, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant sentiment, then more inclusive rhetoric can also be used to reverse that, right?
Right – but only so far. As Dr Azmanova pointed out then – and as has been reinforced at our ‘Changing hearts and minds’ event – income and job insecurity, fear of strangers and perceived loss of cultural identity, coupled with frustration of not being listened to, all have a role to play as well.
One area where this feels particularly pertinent is immigration.
Back in June, I had the privilege of chairing two panel discussions at the excellent World Habitat homelessness and affordability conference. During these conversations, some important questions were asked about the impact of a growing population on housing and how we can communicate these challenges in a way that won't stigmatise migrants.
My view is that without better policies and regulations – and realistic promises that are actually delivered – we can’t.
A good communications strategy and its accompanying narrative will articulate the aims, approaches and impact of the ‘product or service’. To this end, we need a coherent offer that respects and responds to people’s needs and expectations.
Comms teams are often given the impossible task of transforming mediocre or poor work into something shiny and attractive. But if a policy is poor and failing to deliver, no amount of slick narratives and chatty TikTok videos will prevent people from feeling let down, and no amount of ‘comms glitter’ is going to change hearts and minds. Mismatched rhetoric and reality breeds cynicism, erodes trust and leads to anger and hostility.
Let me share two examples with you to illustrate my point.
In a town near where I grew up in Derbyshire, there was once a promise of a new housing estate with a school and medical facilities to accompany them. The houses were eventually built but the infrastructure was not. As more people (including people from Europe and further afield) moved to the area, pressure increased on public services and locals became frustrated. Guess who got the blame for this? (Spoiler: it wasn’t the council for failing to complete the building project in full.)
Another example, also from my neck of the woods: after the mines were closed, many promises were made to create new jobs. Few of these promises were kept. Eventually, in one town where unemployment was particularly high, a factory was built with the promise that the jobs would go to local people. What the company bosses did instead was to import hundreds of cheap labourers from eastern Europe. There weren't enough homes to go around and so everyone had to squash in. Among these labourers were a few bad eggs and so crime went up too. The people of that town ended up with no jobs, no housing and a less safe community.
And so the UK eventually ended up with Brexit and, with it, the loss of the Dublin Agreement, which perversely has resulted in more small boats crossing the Channel – an excellent example of “be careful what you wish you for”.
Now as I watch the news about people protesting outside asylum hotels around the nation, I cannot help but keep thinking about Albena’s comment that you can’t communicate your way out of bad policy. A large number of men being housed in one place, given just £7 a day to live on and banned from working – what else do we expect them to do if not seek the safety of their cultural group and find other means to live?
Of course communication matters – honest stories about who migrants are and their reasons for seeking a new life in Britain must be told, particularly so it is easier for us to understand the difference between the majority of migrants who do, or have the potential to, contribute positively to British life (be it those who are documented or seeking asylum), and the tiny minority who come here with criminal intentions.
Shared values must be promoted, and misinformation and disinformation must be challenged, including that being pumped out by governments (Simon Cook has done some excellent work on this).
But none of this can be a substitute for immigration policy that treats people as humans, planning and employment regulations that help communities thrive, and schemes that make integration work.
When the underlying offer is sound, communications can authentically highlight benefits, address concerns and build durable support. Good communication amplifies genuine value but it can’t manufacture it where none exists – it feels tin-eared at best and dangerously dismissive at worst.
Only when policy and communication pull in the same direction can we hope to replace fear and anger with understanding and acceptance.
