Menu Menu
[gtranslate]

What Rylan Clark tells us about the failure of government communication

The presenter’s stance on immigration has caused widespread backlash. But is the response a sign that the immigration debate is shifting?

When Rylan Clark first appeared on the X Factor in 2012, sporting a set of blinding white veneers and a wotsit shade of spray tan, it was hard to imagine he’d one day be at the center of a national argument about immigration policy.

But on a recent episode of This Morning, the singer-turned-presenter rehearsed a number of the talking points that have been floating about refugees and asylum seekers under an increasingly evasive Labour government.

Clark’s comments are notable for the context in which they were made (This Morning is a generally apolitical programme), and the position Clark himself holds in the cultural zeitgeist. In the years since appearing on the X Factor, he’s become a beloved staple of British TV – a working class boy-next-door who represents the general population in all their ordinary-ness.

That’s why his stance is such a threat: Rylan will be listened to. And for a Labour government that has been flailing in its comms around immigration – an issue of growing importance to much of the British public –this highlights the faults in their own strategy.

I’ll quote Clark’s words at length, given much of the backlash he’s faced since uttering them is founded on a lack of tendency for nuance. Our political conversations are becoming increasingly polarised and leave little to no room for debate or misunderstanding.

The presenter started with a caveat about Britain’s immigrant population, stating that ‘this country is built on immigration […] the doctors that saved my mum’s life came over here from other countries. They’re living a great life, they’re paying into this tax system, they’re helping this country thrive.’

But he also said there was ‘something wrong’ with the way refugees were being welcomed at the border.

‘I find it absolutely insane that all these people are risking their lives coming across the Channel. And when they get here, it does seem – and I think this is why a lot of Labour voters as well are saying there’s something wrong – it feels like, “Welcome, come on in … here’s an iPad, here’s the NHS in the reception of your hotel, here’s three meals a day, here’s a games room in the hotel. Have a lovely time and welcome.”’

The danger is that Rylan’s points (some of which are valid, and some of which aren’t based in fact) will churn up feelings of racism and anti-immigrant sentiment amongst the UK’s more right-leaning individuals. And with no Labour commentary to counter – or, at least, temper – these thoughts and feelings, where does that leave us?

Since facing criticism from a swathe of media outlets and prominent individuals, including Bimini – a non-binary performer and TV personality who countered Clark’s sentiment with a comment that ‘nobody is illegal’ – Rylan left a clarifying statement on X:

‘You can be pro-immigration and against illegal routes,’ he wrote. ‘You can support trans people and have the utmost respect for women. You can be heterosexual and still support gay rights. The list continues. Stop with this “putting everyone in a box” exercise and maybe have conversations instead of shouting on twitter.’

This attitude is one that will be shared by many members of the public – a frustration with the lack of clarity from Starmer’s government around immigration policy, or a complete absence of trust in the man and his constituency.

But that’s not to say Rylan’s words are entirely valid. Refugees are unlikely to be put up in fancy hotels when arriving at the border – nor are they gifted iPads and iPhones. A large portion of them are fleeing war torn homelands and have nothing to their name.

Still, it’s easy to see why, with continually lacklustre communication from the government, many (like Rylan) are perturbed.

Resonance is the real story here: Rylan is no backbench MP or GB News rent-a-quote. He’s a familiar daytime face with working-class credentials. His words carry the weight of relatability, and that’s precisely what should worry a Labour Party still floundering in how it communicates about immigration.

People see rough sleepers on the streets and hotels full of asylum seekers on the news and draw a line between the two. That’s the danger of a debate that reduces complexity to soundbites. It’s also how legitimate frustrations about housing or welfare mutate into suspicion of foreigners.

Then, there’s the simmering and underlying tension left by the Southport tragedy. Its aftershocks are still felt, and influential figures continue to drum up fear and anger towards what they believe is a pertinent and growing threat – whether that be individuals of a certain religious persuasion or nationality.

What often gets lost in the noise is the simple principle that underpins international law: people fleeing war, persecution, or danger have the right to claim asylum for themselves and their children.

Britain has both a moral and legal duty to process claims fairly, while also ensuring systems aren’t abused. These two things can and should coexist. But in a climate where every discussion is reduced to a culture-war skirmish, coexistence is a hard sell.

Accessibility