There's no question that immigration was one of the big referendum stories, but it all depends where you go for your information. On June 25, for instance, "Leave was strongest in places with migrants" (GUARDIAN), but "Strongest vote to quit in towns hit by migrants." (MAIL). Suitably confused?
There's a ton of people who would like to see fewer immigrants, but is that based on prejudice or experience? If it's a genuine feeling but not rooted in a real situation, how much can politicians respond to it? Is there really a "right number" we ought to allow in? Boris Johnson talks about securing consent for immigration, but in the present atmosphere it's hard to see just how that would work. Like many issues in this referendum, it's really complicated, and none of the simple answers work. Of course, somebody ought to be responding to the others things at work here - the lack of jobs and cheap housing, the absence of political involvement. That's all very gritty, long-term, expensive in time, thought and money stuff, but the quickfix solution - "just watch me cut those numbers2 - isn't a reasonable alternative. (Ask David Cameron).
Meanwhile, we have a massive rise in racist insults and attacks, and a Home Office policy towards migrants that is based on offering the most hostile reception possible. .