Does political discourse matter? Comparing party positions and public attitudes on immigration in England

Benjamin LERUTH, Peter Taylor-Gooby

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The 2015 UK General Election campaign was mostly dominated by the issues of immigration, public debt, and income inequality. While most political parties adopted austerity-led programmes in order to reduce the level of public deficit, their stances on immigration vary significantly despite the two main parties converging on a welfare chauvinist frame. This article compares party positions to policy recommendations formulated by participants in a democratic forum as part of the ‘Welfare States Futures: Our Children’s Europe’ project in order to determine whether recent party pledges on immigration are being used by citizens in a large group discussion over the future of welfare policy in the United Kingdom. The analysis shows that while participants are committed to tougher policies in order to reduce existing levels of net migration, most of the policy priorities formulated do not match those of the two mainstream parties (i.e. the Conservative Party and the Labour Party) but rather those of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). It also demonstrates that participants’ individual political preferences do not seem to match their own positions on immigration and that there is little difference between left-leaning and right-leaning voters.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)154-169
Number of pages15
JournalPolitics
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Mar 2018

Fingerprint

immigration
discourse
conservative party
national debt
Labour Party
election campaign
welfare state
group discussion
social policy
deficit
welfare
migration
citizen
income

Cite this

@article{08aec0d97b3a477badc0c2b7c5ba7ff0,
title = "Does political discourse matter? Comparing party positions and public attitudes on immigration in England",
abstract = "The 2015 UK General Election campaign was mostly dominated by the issues of immigration, public debt, and income inequality. While most political parties adopted austerity-led programmes in order to reduce the level of public deficit, their stances on immigration vary significantly despite the two main parties converging on a welfare chauvinist frame. This article compares party positions to policy recommendations formulated by participants in a democratic forum as part of the ‘Welfare States Futures: Our Children’s Europe’ project in order to determine whether recent party pledges on immigration are being used by citizens in a large group discussion over the future of welfare policy in the United Kingdom. The analysis shows that while participants are committed to tougher policies in order to reduce existing levels of net migration, most of the policy priorities formulated do not match those of the two mainstream parties (i.e. the Conservative Party and the Labour Party) but rather those of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). It also demonstrates that participants’ individual political preferences do not seem to match their own positions on immigration and that there is little difference between left-leaning and right-leaning voters.",
keywords = "Democratic forum, Immigration, Party politics, Public Opinion, United Kingdom, immigration, party politics, democratic forum, public opinion",
author = "Benjamin LERUTH and Peter Taylor-Gooby",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1177/0263395718755566",
language = "English",
pages = "154--169",
journal = "Politics",
issn = "0263-3957",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

Does political discourse matter? Comparing party positions and public attitudes on immigration in England. / LERUTH, Benjamin; Taylor-Gooby, Peter.

In: Politics, 07.03.2018, p. 154-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does political discourse matter? Comparing party positions and public attitudes on immigration in England

AU - LERUTH, Benjamin

AU - Taylor-Gooby, Peter

PY - 2018/3/7

Y1 - 2018/3/7

N2 - The 2015 UK General Election campaign was mostly dominated by the issues of immigration, public debt, and income inequality. While most political parties adopted austerity-led programmes in order to reduce the level of public deficit, their stances on immigration vary significantly despite the two main parties converging on a welfare chauvinist frame. This article compares party positions to policy recommendations formulated by participants in a democratic forum as part of the ‘Welfare States Futures: Our Children’s Europe’ project in order to determine whether recent party pledges on immigration are being used by citizens in a large group discussion over the future of welfare policy in the United Kingdom. The analysis shows that while participants are committed to tougher policies in order to reduce existing levels of net migration, most of the policy priorities formulated do not match those of the two mainstream parties (i.e. the Conservative Party and the Labour Party) but rather those of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). It also demonstrates that participants’ individual political preferences do not seem to match their own positions on immigration and that there is little difference between left-leaning and right-leaning voters.

AB - The 2015 UK General Election campaign was mostly dominated by the issues of immigration, public debt, and income inequality. While most political parties adopted austerity-led programmes in order to reduce the level of public deficit, their stances on immigration vary significantly despite the two main parties converging on a welfare chauvinist frame. This article compares party positions to policy recommendations formulated by participants in a democratic forum as part of the ‘Welfare States Futures: Our Children’s Europe’ project in order to determine whether recent party pledges on immigration are being used by citizens in a large group discussion over the future of welfare policy in the United Kingdom. The analysis shows that while participants are committed to tougher policies in order to reduce existing levels of net migration, most of the policy priorities formulated do not match those of the two mainstream parties (i.e. the Conservative Party and the Labour Party) but rather those of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). It also demonstrates that participants’ individual political preferences do not seem to match their own positions on immigration and that there is little difference between left-leaning and right-leaning voters.

KW - Democratic forum

KW - Immigration

KW - Party politics

KW - Public Opinion

KW - United Kingdom

KW - immigration

KW - party politics

KW - democratic forum

KW - public opinion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043337676&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0263395718755566

DO - 10.1177/0263395718755566

M3 - Article

SP - 154

EP - 169

JO - Politics

JF - Politics

SN - 0263-3957

ER -