Survey on asylum pledge criticised as misleading by experts

In October 2024, Portsmouth City Council signed the Council of Sanctuary Pledge, committing to fostering a welcoming culture for those in asylum or resettlement programmes.

PIP opposed the pledge, arguing it could support people entering the UK “illegally”, such as asylum seekers arriving by small boats, and insisted residents should have been consulted before the decision.

On December 8, PIP published the results of a survey it conducted through leaflets mailed to residents, funded in part via crowdfunding. Recipients were directed to an online survey that garnered over 4,000 responses.

According to PIP, 74.3 per cent of respondents supported welcoming legal migrants to Portsmouth, while nearly 70 per cent backed refugees fleeing recognised war zones.

PIP reported that nearly 89 per cent of respondents opposed the Council of Sanctuary Pledge if it included those entering illegally, with just over 57 per cent supporting the pledge if those individuals were excluded.

PIP leader councillor George Madgwick described the survey as a “valid source” for understanding residents’ views and claimed it showed that 89 per cent of people did not want asylum seekers “in the city.”

Dr Charles Leddy-Owen, a senior lecturer at the University of Portsmouth specialising in nationalism, racism, and asylum, disputed the survey’s legitimacy.

He argued that the self-selected nature of respondents made the results unreliable. “A large number of people responding to a survey does not indicate that it is representative,” he said, explaining that valid surveys require random sampling to reflect broader public opinion.

He concluded: “The survey is completely unscientific and its results essentially meaningless.”

Responding to the criticism, Councillor Madgwick dismissed Dr Leddy-Owen’s comments, stating: “Dr Leddy-Owen’s response is a prime example of someone who is so educated that they can tell you the cubic mass of a jam jar but can't tell you how to open it.”

"We followed the council's accepted and used procedures that they base all their decision-making processes on. The doctor clearly just doesn't like the outcome of the results thus wants to use his credentials to debunk them or give doubt to their credibility."

Sunder Katwala, director of the think tank British Future, which researches public attitudes to immigration, also questioned the survey’s credibility. He noted that self-selecting surveys fail to capture the full spectrum of public opinion and are biased towards respondents most engaged with the issue.

Mr Katwala highlighted that six in 10 respondents to the survey were over 50, while census data shows most adults in Portsmouth are under 50. “This method cannot possibly tell you the overall balance of opinion in Portsmouth,” he said, adding, “it’s inaccurate to claim that it does".

Labour group leader Councillor Charlotte Gerada criticised PIP’s actions, describing them as a distraction from addressing the city’s real needs.

“Portsmouth is a city of doers – hard-working people who get things done,” she said, accusing PIP of encouraging residents to part with “hard-earned cash” for a survey with questionable methods and results.

She urged PIP to prioritise practical actions to improve the city, adding: “That’s what we are elected to do.”

Councillor Steve Pitt, leader of the council, criticised the survey, stating the leaflet delivered to residents “clearly indicates a certain view is not likely to secure an unbiased sample". He described the representation of the Council of Sanctuary as “fundamentally misleading and incorrect,” asserting there was “absolutely no evidence” to suggest the pledge would impact the number of asylum seekers placed in Portsmouth by the UK Government.

Cllr Pitt emphasised that the initiative was about ensuring asylum seekers were treated “fairly, with respect and understanding,” calling it “a reinforcement of basic human empathy and compassion and not something to be traded away by a misleading party political campaign”.