British Public Opinion Research Articles

Is there a rural-urban political divide in Britain?

ABSTRACT A rural-urban political divide, characterized by rural mistrust in politics, dissatisfaction with democracy, and support for authoritarian-populist leaders and parties, has been identified in many Western democracies. Yet there has been little investigation of the extent to which British public opinion is divided in this fashion. Using British Election Study data from 2016 and 2019 that combines large samples with finely-grained geographic identifiers, this paper investigates the possible presence and extent of a rural-urban divide in British political attitudes and values. We find that while rural Britons are more conservative on economic issues, and more supportive of the Conservative party than urbanites, the two groups have comparable levels of democratic satisfaction, political trust, and authoritarianism. As such, unlike in other Western democracies, we do not find any evidence that rural Britons are more resentful, dissatisfied, or “left-behind” compared to their urban counterparts.

Changes in British public opinion on the eve and at the beginning of the First World War

Changes in British public opinion on the eve and at the beginning of the First World War

The Egyptian Revolution of 1919 in the Perception of the British Political Elite and British Public Opinion

The purpose of this papers is to analyze the perception of the British public opinion and the political elite of Great Britain of the revolutionary processes in Egypt during the period 1919—1922. The main thesis of this study is that the events in Egypt were on the periphery of British public discourse, but they caused a great concern among the British establishment. The perception of the Egyptians remained in the perspective of the ideas of the “white man’s burden” and the Egyptian nation was denied the right and possibility of self-determination and the creation of its own sovereign state. However, due to the impossibility of maintaining the pre-revolutionary status quo and the willingness of British society and elites to make some concessions to Egyptian leaders, Egypt gained independence while the British maintain the control over the Suez Canal and Sudan as well as the right to patronize Egyptian ethnic and confessional minorities and protect Egypt from external threats.

Cultural Clichés and the Cleo-Craze: How did Great Britain Use Propaganda Between 1882 and 1922 to Influence British Public Opinion to Support their Annexation of Egypt?

The contemporary relationship between British politicians, their press, and the British public is rooted in a propaganda model established in the 19th century, after advances in printing technology coincided with the expansion of the empire and subsequent justifications for imperialism. This article examines the founding of this relationship, specifically in the case of the official British annexation of Egypt between 1882 and 1922, in an attempt to illuminate more generally colonial power dynamics and how the media's portrayal of history alters a public's conceptions of race. Thus, the relationship between the Victorian press, the British government, and their annexed country Egypt, provides an important case analysis for propaganda studies generally, and furthers the discussion about how race and class are perceived by the British public as a result.

How the media matters for the economic vote: Evidence from Britain

Existing research finds that economic news can influence how citizens evaluate their governments, but the relative importance of different channels through which this effect arises, and how this may vary across contexts, remains unclear. Drawing on media dependency theory, I argue that we should observe larger media effects on citizens’ economic evaluations during periods of economic stability than during crises. Moreover, during crises, we should observe larger media effects on citizens’ evaluations of governing parties’ responsibility for, and handling of, the economic situation, than on their subjective economic evaluations. Additionally, these effects should be stronger among governing party supporters. Analysis of British public opinion leading up to and following the 2007–8 global financial crisis provides empirical support for this theory. These findings have implications for our understanding of how the media matters for the economic vote, as well as voters’ ability to use elections as instruments of accountability during crises.

From Bush to Biden: British public opinion and the image of America

The scholarly literature on US–UK relations has been marked by recurrent debate over the health and utility of the special relationship, recently enlivened by the policy tensions and political turbulence of the Trump presidency. The literature has also seen a social and cultural ‘turn’, with a growing focus on the broader linkages between the two countries’ societies and cultures. However, there has been limited analysis of public opinion in Britain in recent scholarly research. This article examines the ‘image of America’ in British public opinion in the twenty-first century, across recent Republican and Democratic presidencies. It uses data from the annual Pew Global Attitudes survey series and Transatlantic Trends survey series to undertake systematic analysis of these quantitative data sources. It examines the following areas: the performance and policies of presidents from Bush to Biden, the US and its people, the state of bilateral relations, and NATO. It examines aggregate-level opinion and also pays close attention to views across different societal groups, based on demographic characteristics, party support and left–right ideology. The paper makes a significant and distinctive contribution to scholarly research into US–UK relations.

Salvemini's antifascist exile in London: attracting the attention of a British audience

AbstractIn 1925 the Fascist dictatorship forced Gaetano Salvemini to leave Italy and begin a new life in exile. Salvemini understood he could find political and financial support in London to achieve two main aims: to live a decent life as an antifascist exile and fight the Fascist dictatorship from abroad. Thanks to a network encompassing intellectuals, academics, journalists, and politicians, London provided Salvemini with a platform for sharing antifascist stances outside Italy. This essay will develop research on this topic by taking into account Salvemini's conference speeches, articles, books, and essays written while in Britain, from 1925 to 1934. The corpus of the selected texts will show that Salvemini carefully singled out topics that were able to attract the attention of a foreign audience, particularly British public opinion. Therefore, the analysis of Salvemini's intellectual production during this period and the reaction of the press will contribute to cast a new light on his antifascist strategies; in other words, it will lead to a consideration of the extent to which being part of a British intellectual network transformed his approach to the antifascist struggle.

Myth, Manchester, and the Battle of British Public Opinion during the American Civil War

AbstractManchester ‘working men’ approved an address in support of Abraham Lincoln's emancipation policy and the American Union at the Free Trade Hall on 31 December 1862. The US president described their gesture as ‘sublime Christian heroism’ when hopes of restoring the cotton supply and reopening the mills were better served by Confederate recognition. This transatlantic exchange became an integral part of the scholarly traditional interpretation that the British working class frustrated the pro-Confederate designs of the upper classes during the American Civil War. It formed the historiographical orthodoxy until revisionists countered that Lancashire workers advocated Confederate recognition. The Manchester meeting, revisionists claimed, was contrived to give the impression of working-class support for Lincoln which was, in fact, a myth. These two incompatible interpretations simplify and flatten the complexity of an event with local, national, and international ramifications. This article presents the first detailed examination of who organized the Free Trade Hall meeting and why. It moves scholarly understanding of the British public response to the American Civil War beyond its current stasis of ‘traditional’ versus ‘revisionist’ by placing the field in conversation with the recent history of radicalism and ‘class’ in the Victorian era.

Margaret Thatcher, British public opinion and German reunification, 1989–90

ABSTRACT Using opinion poll data collected for the United States Information Agency, the European Commission and various media organisations, this article analyses British public opinion towards German reunification in 1989 and 1990. Contrasting the public’s views with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hostile approach towards German unity, it demonstrates that the British public were largely supportive of the principle of German reunification. Nevertheless, there was uncertainty about reunification’s consequences. Furthermore, significant generational differences existed, with Britons who experienced life during periods of war in the first half of the twentieth century expressing greater concern about the prospect of a united Germany.

Britain’s China policy after Brexit: Based on pragmatism or values first?

After Brexit, Britain has vowed to build a “Global Britain”. Guided by this strategy, the Great Britain’s policy towards People’s Republic of China is undergoing a more dramatic adjustment, which has brought the relations between China and the United Kingdom from a “golden era” to a more turbulent and unpredictable period of today. Overall, Britain’s current policy toward China is based on a range of policy tools, such as investment screening, Indo-Pacific Policy, as well as bilateral mechanisms, to catch the Chinese market for economic gain, while politically following the United States and provoking China on ideological and sovereignty matters in order to maintain its alliance with the West. Given in general the increase of negative perceptions of British public opinion of China, as well as the dramatic changes in the international situation (including the occurrence of major geopolitical events such as the Russian-Ukrainian military conflict), adjustments in the UK’s policy toward China will continue for some time, which will impact the stability of Sino-British relations. In the future, based on pragmatism, Britain’s China policy will maintain a flexible balance between maintaining selective cooperation with China in economy and global governance and deepening confrontation with China in the political sphere.

Public Opinion, National Character, and Britain’s Failed Defence of the Netherlands, 1793-1795

ABSTRACT This analysis examines the British government’s failure to commit adequate resources to defend the Netherlands from the threat of revolutionary France in the campaigns of 1793, 1794, and 1795. Alongside well-known military and diplomatic setbacks, the inadequacy of Britain’s engagement remains best understood by examining ministers’ preconceptions of the Netherlands and Dutch national character. These understandings largely derived from British public opinion concerning the Netherlands. The analysis shows that British perceptions of Dutch strength, wealth, and national character led ministers to presume too much of their ally and contributed to limiting their own commitments.

The ‘ultimate insurance’ or an ‘irrelevance’ for national security needs? Partisanship, foreign policy attitudes, and the gender gap in British public opinion towards nuclear weapons

AbstractOnly two European countries – France and the UK, both NATO members – have nuclear weapons, and leading politicians have called for the UK and EU to maintain close military and security links post-Brexit. In the context of the Trident renewal debate and the UK government's recently published integrated defence and security review, this article uses data from the new UK Security Survey to analyse attitudes towards the possession of nuclear weapons among the British public. It assesses three key theorical strands in the wider scholarly literature on public opinion and states’ use of military force: domestic political attitudes, foreign policy predispositions, and the ‘gender gap’. We find that all three theoretical perspectives contribute to the underpinnings of contemporary public opinion towards nuclear weapons. Support for the retention of Britain's nuclear deterrent is associated with being a Conservative Party supporter, favouring Brexit, endorsing superior military power worldwide as an important foreign policy goal, wanting to protect the transatlantic relationship, and with being male. The article makes a distinctive contribution to the growing subfield of research on public opinion and foreign policy, while the findings advance wider empirical understanding of contemporary citizen engagement in a key dimension of security policy.

British Public Opinion on the Rhodesian Issue, 1963-1980

From 1965 to 1980 the rebel colony of Rhodesia was rarely out of the news. It formed one of the most significant issues in British politics, and multiple governments were unable to resolve the dispute. Yet, despite the extensive work done so far on the Rhodesian issue, little has been said about the views of the British public. This article uses the many opinion polls taken on the subject to explore the topic during the period just before and during Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence. It considers the interest that the British public took in Rhodesia, as well as their level of knowledge about the topic, and how they viewed the racial struggle that took place there. It shows how the crisis of the 1960s captured the public imagination, before interest declined in the early 1970s, only to be renewed at the end of the war. It also explains how it would be simplistic to say that people in Britain were necessarily wholly against the use of force in 1965, but that they turned against it more firmly as time went on. Again, on the subject of sanctions views were divided throughout the period. It further demonstrates that there the British public had complicated views about a majority rule state, even if they believed that it was an inevitable, and justified outcome of the situation. Ultimately, however, it argues that people in Britain felt that Rhodesia was a complex and distant problem for which any expedient solution was generally perceived as satisfactory. Finally, it suggests that public attitudes to Rhodesia and UDI are indicative of significant developments in how the British viewed the Empire and their post-Imperial obligations during the period 1965–80.

Resettlement of British and Irish Catholics to Continental Europe in 16<sup>th</sup>—18<sup>th</sup> Centuries

The problem of large-scale migration of British and Irish Catholics to continental Europe in the 16th—18th centuries is investigated. The relevance of the study is due to the fact that the religious schools of Catholics in Europe were seen as examples of pious communities, the foundations on which the emerging traditions of religious tolerance, stability and commercial prosperity were built in England. It is noted that this fueled the arguments of the supporters of liberal religious reforms in the UK in the 19th century. The novelty of the study is seen in the fact that the study of the movement of Catholics to Europe makes it possible to reveal the degree of influence of religious schools on British politics and public opinion, to understand how the expatriate community in exile functioned, adapted and communicated. Migration has been proven to be most intense during the Elizabethan period and early Stuart reign, but its impact on religious life in Britain and Ireland was felt over a longer period, until the end of the 18th century. The authors conclude that for Catholics who remained in England, religious institutions in Europe were not only a source of supply of missionary priests and religious literature, but also a link with the continental Counter-Reformation.

A Matter of Public Importance? The ‘Europe Open for Business’ Campaign, British Public Opinion and the Single Market

AbstractThis article offers a historical assessment of the ‘Europe Open for Business’ campaign, launched in 1988 by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government and related to the programme to complete the single market. The campaign, which greatly increased business awareness of the 1992 programme, was a unique propaganda exercise that emphasized the importance that the Conservatives attached to the single market. However, the campaign was undermined by Thatcher's September 1988 Bruges speech. Using contemporary public opinion data related to the single market, the article also argues that it was limited by the decision to target solely a business, rather than a public, audience. Through its assessment of the Europe Open for Business campaign, the article thus contributes to four areas of inquiry: British government propaganda over European integration; Conservative Party European policy; the growing literature on the Bruges speech; and broader debates on the role of publics in the European integration process.

Reframing (inner) terror: A digital discourse-based approach to evidential repositioning of reader reactions towards visual reframing

The present article claims that the British public opinion’s repositioning towards inner terror after the 2017 Westminster attacks was (i) affected by the visual reframing of an original viral press photograph of the attacks targeting a Muslim passerby as an inner terrorist and (ii) linguistically expressed through the use of ‘look’ object-oriented visual markers of evidentiality in written digital discourse. To support this claim, British readers’ commentaries on a selection of online opinion articles reframing inner terror into terror through the use of reframed press photographs will be taken as the corpus of analysis. The ultimate aim of the article is to unveil the British readers’ reactions to the reframed photographs of the attacks as linguistically expressed through their use of ‘look’ object-oriented repositioning strategies of visual evidentiality in order to analyse the repositioning process.

The eastern question in the parliament of the United Kingdom in 1876

This article scrutinizes the attitude of the British political elites towards the Eastern question, in the year of the beginning of the Serbian liberation and unification wars of 1876-1878. It is based on diverse sources, Hansard?s Parliamentary Debates being the most important one. The Eastern question, as geopolitical problem of the future of the Balkan and Levantine lands from which the Ottoman Empire was gradually retreating, has been considered through the confrontation of Great Britain and Russia on the wider Eurasian stage, especially in relation to their conflict in the Central Asia. The article is mainly devoted to the different interpretations, debates and conflicts in the British Parliament and public opinion, provoked by the Serbian uprising in Herzegovina and Bosnia, atrocities in Bulgaria, and the beginning of the Serbian-Turkish Wars. The divisions went mainly through the party lines. Behind almost all events in the East, the Conservatives perceived the hand of Russia and League of the Three Emperors (Dreikaisebund). These ?foreign influences? were attributed mainly to Russia and Serbia, as the alleged Russia?s tool in the Balkans. Thus, according to the Conservatives, the Serbs and Russians were to blame for the sufferings of Bulgarians in the hands of the Turks. Additionally, they were repeating that Turkish crimes were committed in self-defence, and that the numbers of victims were hugely exaggerated by the Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda and the British liberal press. The Conservatives had similar attitudes towards the atrocities committed by the Turks in the Eastern Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Liberals, on the other hand, were insisting that the main causes of these uprisings and wars were national feelings, economical problems, and the misrule of the Turks. They were directing their moral indignation not only to the Turks, but to the British government as well. According to the Liberals, by despatching of the British fleet in the vicinity of the Ottoman capital, the British government encouraged the Turks and made Great Britain co-responsible for the atrocities committed in Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Justifying Revolution: Law, Virtue, and Violence in the American War of Independence ed. Glenn A. Moots and Philip Hamilton

Reviewed by: Justifying Revolution: Law, Virtue, and Violence in the American War of Independence ed. Glenn A. Moots and Philip Hamilton Zara Anishanslin (bio) Keywords Just war theory, Warfare, American Revolutionary War, Military history Justifying Revolution: Law, Virtue, and Violence in the American War of Independence. Edited by Glenn A. Moots and Philip Hamilton. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2018. Pp. 392. Cloth, $45.00.) The organizers of the edited volume Justifying Revolution: Law, Virtue, and Violence in the American War of Independence have a simple yet potent justification for their work: It is the first book to examine the American Revolution within the context of just-war theory. The editors, Glenn Moots and Philip Hamilton, rightly point out that such a theoretical application is overdue. They also argue that the fact the American Revolution was "hard, bloody, and destructive" (3) makes it particularly fruitful for such analysis. For these reasons, the volume is a welcome contribution to the historiography of the American Revolution writ large. Co-edited by a professor of history and a professor of political science and philosophy, the book offers a laudably interdisciplinary spectrum of scholars who, at times, contradict one another, most notably around the central question of whether or not the American Revolution was a "just war." This leaves the reader wishing the editors had included a "Conclusion" to tie the volume together. Aside from that omission, the book's structure is logical. After the editors' "Introduction," it moves from a section on "Jus ad Bellum" (justifi-cations for waging rebellion or starting war), to one on "Jus in Bello" (the ethics of wartime conduct toward civilians and military both), before a concluding section, "Jus post Bellum" (the morality of post-war diplomacy and peace). This structure moves the reader from thinking—as those who lived through the revolutionary era would have done—about legal and ethical applications of just-war theory before, during, and after the beginning and end of armed conflict. Although the editors frame the [End Page 117] volume as one engaging just-war theory writ large, this is, as they term it, "western" just-war theory. In fact, the book's focus is overwhelmingly Euro- and Euro American-centric. Fans of Swiss legal theorist Emer de Vattel, author of Law of Nations (1758), will find much to enjoy here. Norwegian law professor Andreas Aure walks the reader through an intellectual genealogy explaining why Vattel was the "most influential voice concerning just war theory" among revolutionary era leaders (22), while international affairs professor Theodore Christov examines the fondness that George Washington and other Americans such as James Otis had for Vattel. Moots and Valerie Ona Morkeviĉius, both political scientists, consider Vattel alongside other Protestant thinkers such as John Calvin, as their focus is Protestant ideas about justifications for war and rebellion over two centuries, a welcome look at religion and war. However, despite admitting that, "historians disagree about the precise role of Protestant religion in the Revolution" (48), they do not really address this historiography, instead presenting us with a Revolution almost uniformly peopled by Reformed Protestants. Jack P. Greene also takes us back and forth across the Atlantic to look at this "fratricidal war." Relying upon pamphlet literature, Greene looks at "coercionists" and "conciliationists" in both Britain and America, tracing the arguments of those in favor of using force against rebel colonists and those against. As he pithily notes, "British coercionists should be accorded a place among the founders of the nation that came into being as an unintended consequence of their resort to military measures" (97–98). Greene's point that both British and American public opinion should be studied is a crucial yet too often underemphasized one—though he, like other authors in the book, neglects the importance of visual culture in transatlantic propaganda. Greene's chapter finds a useful companion in historian William Anthony Hay's edifying look at shifting British strategies and claims of sovereignty jus post bellum. Chapters by Philip Hamilton and Jonathan Den Hartog also form useful companion pieces for different chronological stages, in this case through biopic analyses. Hamilton's focus on Henry Knox's gentlemanly ideals about jus in bello and...

EU-27 Public Opinion on Brexit.

Although there has been much interest in British public opinion on Brexit, much less is known about how EU‐27 Europeans view the Brexit negotiations. This is surprising, because Brexit confronts the EU‐27 with difficult choices. Whereas accommodating the UK carries the risk of encouraging further countriesto leave the EU, an uncompromising negotiation stance increases the economic and social costs of Brexit. Using original survey data from 39,000 respondents in all EU‐27 countries collected between the start of the Brexit negotiations and December 2018, this article shows that exposure to the economic risks of Brexit makes respondents more willing to accommodate the UK, whereas a positive opinion of the EU decreases their willingness to compromise. Moreover, many Europeans face an accommodation dilemma that moderates these preferences. Overall, the EU‐27 public unsentimentally supports a Brexit negotiation line that safeguards their own interests best.

«Russia does not step out of the role of the defendant in the Persian question…»: British discursive practices and Russian public opinion on the eve of the Great War

The paper is devoted to the peculiarities of the British socio-political discourse functioning in the relation towards Russia and its foreign policy on the eve of the First World War. Based on the materials related to the Persian question and the activities of the Persia Committee, it was shown that a significant part of the British public opinion was biased against Russia, even after the signing of the 1907 Convention. Such invective approach had a direct and indirect impact on the policy of Foreign Office. At the same time, these British discursive practices were accepted by Russian public opinion as a constant in the mutual relations of the two Empires. Moreover, there was a tendency in Russian press to use the British Other (accusing and rebuking) as a convenient tool for affirming their own ideas and positions. Commenting on various British accusations and reproaches, Russian publicists appealed to their own government, hinting that the latter pays more attention to the British public opinion than to the interests of Russia. The government, for its part, used the appeal to Russian public opinion as an argument in its disputes with London. Thus, during the period under review, in Russia it was learned how to use the British approach to it as to a convenient Other in its own interests.