You have a huge number of people who spend their time writing papers which show that migrants pay more to the country than they take out in benefits, and they say, "Why don't you approve of migration? Why don't you open up borders?" They're not able to empathize with how people feel about migration.

There's no point in just hankering for the big trade unions of the 1950s or '60s.

To be effective at selling ideas, at being a lobbyist, influencing other people, you have to be very sure of yourself.

There's a diversion between economic reality - integration, global village, everybody depending on everybody else - and cultural reality, which is people feeling invaded, undermined, threatened, wanting to have "stand-your-ground" legislation all over the place. It's alarming because at the moment, the fear is outweighing the benefits, and that's partially because the benefits have been so unequally distributed that lots of people don't feel better off. They feel threatened, angry and despairing.

Floundering around, learning by doing but also by failing, is not only good but inevitable.

I see [activists] getting really angry that people won't just do what the evidence tells them, and that's not very helpful. You need to actually think why that is.

Somewhere like Russia or China, decision-makers have far fewer constraints on acting than in more open systems.