How did the UK media cover these latest statistics? Outlets
like the BBC and the Guardian reported the fall in net migration in
fairly neutral terms, with the latter focusing on the potential boost
that the figures could provide to Starmer’s government.

However, the Telegraph, an unapologetic supporter of Farage
and stricter border controls, concentrated on the emigration figures
and, in particular, the “young Britons turning their back on Starmer’s
high-tax UK”.

James Frayne, a Telegraph columnist, dismissed the
significance of falling net migration entirely. “Those who believe these
figures will somehow help Starmer and or doom Nigel Farage are engaging
in wishful thinking,” he wrote, adding: “Immigration is here to stay as
an issue and Reform will campaign on it in Makerfield (where Burnham
will contest a by-election next month) and across the country into next
general election and beyond.”

Many readers posting in response to the article dismissed
the data and instead spouted the usual far right poison about
“invasions”, asylum seekers “gaming the system” and the “ethnic
cleansing” of Britain.

To be fair, I’ll say that the Daily Mail, another newspaper
famous for its anti-immigration outlook, reported the new statistics
fairly straight, although it made sure to mention in the headline that
the number of asylum seekers (slightly) increased in 2025. (However, to
demonstrate that famous phrase about lies, damn lies and statistics,
figures up to March 2026 showed a 12% fall in asylum claims).

Below the line, it was clear why falling migration has
little impact on public opinion – commenters just didn’t believe it.
“Strange thing about figures and statistics”, wrote one reader, “you can
move them around to fit your narrative”. “The figures are false and
manipulated to look good,” said another. “It’s true,” said one poster,
“the figures have been verified by Santa Claus, Big Foot and the Loch
Ness Monster.”

This sceptical response would not surprise Duffy and Cohen.
In their blog, they’d written presciently: “Even if we could convey a
perfect reality of immigration levels and effects to people, this would
not negate concerns – this is an emotional reaction to how the country
is changing more than a cold trade-off of pros and cons.

“Cause and effect run in both directions, where we overestimate what
we worry about as much as the other way round: this means simplistic
myth-busting will have less effect than you might expect, because it
misdiagnoses what is partly an emotional and identity issue.”