DOCSLIB.ORG

Divided Britain? Polarisation and Fragmentation Trends in the UK

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Divided Britain? Polarisation and Fragmentation Trends in the UK THE POLICY INSTITUTE Divided Britain? Polarisation and fragmentation trends in the UK Bobby Duffy Kirstie Hewlett Julian McCrae John Hall September 2019 About the authors Bobby Duffy is Director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London Kirstie Hewlett is a Research Associate at the Policy Institute Julian McCrae is Managing Director of Engage Britain John Hall is an independent consultant Editorial, design and production by George Murkin and Lizzie Ellen © The Policy Institute at King’s College London, 2019 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 04 1. INTRODUCTION 14 2. DEFINING POLARISATION 20 3. POLARISATION TRENDS 32 4. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE 84 APPENDIX: REA SEARCH 90 REFERENCES 96 September 2019 | Divided Britain? 3 Executive summary As the results of the EU referendum were announced, political leaders were quick to say that the outcome had ‘revealed a divided Britain’, and have since asserted the need for politicians on all sides to unite and ‘bring the country back together, rather than entrenching division’. But the phrase ‘Divided Britain’ has taken root in our everyday lexicon and is now frequently used to capture a growing sense of social and political polarisation in our country, driven by the national split revealed and reinforced by the Brexit vote. Headlines warn that we are seeing a ‘more tribalised Britain’, a nation more ‘bitterly divided’ than during the miners’ strike, the poll tax protests of the 1990s and the Iraq War. Politicians refer to ‘these increasingly polarised times’ with such frequency and certainty that it goes largely unquestioned. Too often, terms such as ‘division’ In some ways this is not surprising. Division is very clearly and ‘polarisation’ suggested by a near 50-50 vote in the referendum, alongside are used even the most casual scan of the survey evidence and interchangeably fractious discussion around Brexit and our current politics. But there is far less serious analysis of the nature and scale of the problem, based on clear concepts and definitions. Too often, terms such as ‘division’ and ‘polarisation’ are used interchangeably, accepted as synonymous and universally understandable, when they are distinct, complex and contested concepts. Encouraging more precision in how we define polarisation and the evidence supporting it, as this report attempts to do, is not an exercise in academic pedantry. Understanding the true position and trajectory helps point to actions and avoid risks, such as talking ourselves into problems we don’t have, or missing what’s really happening and therefore overlooking likely future trends. 4 Divided Britain? | September 2019 This report outlines conceptual frameworks that are relevant to this debate – distinguishing, in particular, between issue- based and affective forms of polarisation, as summarised in Figure 1. Using these frameworks, we then review the available evidence of polarisation in the UK (including a comparison with the US and Europe) and reflect on what this may mean for the UK’s future. FIGURE 1: Issue polarisation DEFINITIONS OF BIMODALITY CONFLICT POLARISATION DISPERSION EXTENSION towards the of opinion, forming across a range of furthermost around two modes issues that cohere extremes of identity with little middle around a particular or electorate or opinion ground identity SALIENCE in the relative weight that issues carry, aecting how polarised the environment feels Aective polarisation IDENTIFICATION DIFFERENTIATION PERCEPTION BIAS with an “in-group” of in-group from that leads to based on shared out-group that leads dierent views of the opinions, values to favourability and world and influences and beliefs denigraion decisions Each applying across political class and/ Is the UK polarising? The United States has been the main focus of research on polarisation to date, and is therefore a useful reference point, even though the nature and extent of polarisation in the US is more contested than it first seems. UK trends are also not fully captured by a simple reading across of how polarisation has evolved there – not least because we are experiencing extremely rapid and volatile changes driven by the unique circumstances of Brexit. September 2019 | Divided Britain? 5 Key terms to better understand the debate on polarisation Issue polarisation: the divisions Affective polarisation: when individuals formed around one or more policy begin to segregate themselves socially positions or issues. Some also argue and to distrust and dislike people that, to be meaningfully polarising, from the opposing side, irrespective issues need to be important (or of whether they disagree on matters ‘salient’) to a large section of the of policy. public, not just a minority of people with strongly held views. Key terms relating to affective polarisation Key terms relating to issue polarisation Identification with a particular group based on a shared opinion or position Dispersion: increasing distance (an ‘in-group), typically measured between the furthermost poles of by the strength of support for a opinion. This could mean that the particular political party or equivalent. full spectrum of opinion expands or moves toward more extreme Differentiation of the group that positions, even though a majority may someone identifies with from opposing still hold moderate views. groups, which are often referred to as ‘out-groups’. This can involve Bi-modality: where opinions cluster associating positive traits with people around two distinct positions. These who belong to the same side and positions may not necessarily be negative traits with opposing groups, the most strongly held or extreme or actively disliking or avoiding social opinions – there is instead simply a contact with individuals on the basis hollowing out of the middle ground on their political identity. between them. Perception bias: where people Conflict extension: where opinions experience the same realities in grow divided on a range of issue completely different ways, based positions associated with a given on the identities with which they identity, rather than having just one associate. For example, clear biases dominant issue on which each side have been detected in relation to disagrees, such as abortion or Leave and Remain identities, with immigration. those on each side having a different interpretation of the claim that the UK Salience: the relative weight that sends the EU £350 million per week. different topics carry (ie how much people care about them). Salience is therefore greater when the mass public cares strongly about an issue, which is important because it affects how polarised the political environment feels. 6 Divided Britain? | September 2019 Key terms to better understand the debate on polarisation (continued) Partisan: in the context of this report, Partisan dealignment: where a large partisan refers to a strong supporter portion of the electorate abandons of a political party or cause. its previous partisan (political party) affiliation, without developing a new Party sorting: where the public switch one to replace it to supporting parties that better reflect their views, or where parties Party-system fragmentation: where adapt their policies to better reflect more parties become electorally the position of their supporters. effective, and traditional parties find it harder to achieve overall majorities. Unlike the US, where the electorate has increasingly sorted into two partisan identities, the UK shows evidence of long- term ‘partisan dealignment’, where a large portion of the electorate abandons its previous political party affiliation, without yet developing a new one to replace it. This fragmentation within the UK political system – and within Brexit identities individual parties – is important for understanding recent have established trends. themselves in an extremely short Three key points emerge from our review of the available period of time, evidence in the UK: often surpassing traditional party The number of people who strongly identify with a identities 1. political party has declined significantly, and is now far exceeded by the number who strongly identify with their side of the Brexit vote. By 2018, only 9 per cent of the electorate said they very strongly identified with a political party, compared with nearly half of the electorate in the 1960s. In contrast, Brexit identities have established themselves in an extremely short period of time, often surpassing traditional party identities. For example, 44 per cent say they very strongly identify with their side of the Brexit vote, compared with 9 per cent who very strongly identify with their political party. September 2019 | Divided Britain? 7 2. People on both sides of the Brexit vote dislike the opposing side intensely even though they don’t necessarily disagree with their positions on salient issues. There is strong evidence of this ‘affective polarisation’, which is revealed in two ways: • ‘Differentiation’, where one side views the other side’s traits as negative and its own traits as positive, or one side reduces interaction with the other side. • ‘Perception bias’, whereby people experience the same realities in completely different ways, depending on the Brexit identities with which they associate. The extent of this affective polarisation around Brexit matches or surpasses that seen around political party identities. 3. Evidence that the UK has become more polarised when it comes to people’s positions on salient issues is much less clear. In the run-up to the EU referendum, views were polarised on a range of highly salient issues, particularly immigration. But this issue – one of the key drivers of division in the referendum – has since declined significantly in salience, and perceptions of There are the impact of immigration have actually become more many aspects of attitudes positive, with a narrowing of the gap in opinion between and identity Leavers and Remainers. Added to this, there are many in the UK that aspects of attitudes and identity in the UK that are are converging converging rather than polarising, such as views on rather than key public policy challenges such as health and social polarising care, and on issues such as gender roles, homosexuality and racial prejudice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Subsidies and Funding from Some of the Largest UK Industries, She Also Signalled a Break with the Idea of the Economic State
    James Webber All Change? UK State Aid after Brexit What Law? Whose Courts? Copy Proof POLITEIA A FORUM FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC THINKING POLITEIA A Forum for Social and Economic Thinking Politeia commissions and publishes discussions by specialists about social and economic ideas and policies. It aims to encourage public discussion on the relationship between the state and the people. Its aim is not to influence people to support any given political party, candidates for election, or position in a referendum, but to inform public discussion of policy. The forum is independently funded, and the publications do not express a corporate opinion, but the views of their individual authors. www.politeia.co.uk All Change? UK State Aid after Brexit What Law? Whose Courts? James Webber POLITEIA 2020 First published in 2020 by Politeia 14a Eccleston Street London SW1W 9LT Tel: 0207 799 5034 Email: [email protected] Website: www.politeia.co.uk © Politeia 2020 ISBN 978-1-9993662-9-2 Cover design by John Marenbon Politeia gratefully acknowledges support for this publication from The Foundation for Social and Economic Thinking (FSET) Printed in the United Kingdom by: Millnet Limited 6-7 Princes Court 11 Wapping Lane London E1W 2DA Foreword State Aid, the EU and the UK Economy Different Systems, Different Rules Sheila Lawlor, Director of Politeia The battle and its background.1 Very shortly the next battle with the EU will begin over an unlikely battleground: what rules should govern UK State aid and what are their implications for a trade deal with the bloc? For the UK, a country that, more than most others, has championed free trade, unfettered and competitive markets and an economy under the rule of law, the subject seems uncontentious.
    [Show full text]
  • Jo Swinson: the New Liberal Democrat Leader
    Jo Swinson: the new Liberal Democrat Leader 22 July 2019 Who is Jo Swinson? Jo Swinson was born in 1980, growing up and going to school in East Dunbartonshire, which she now represents in Parliament. Her mother was a primary school teacher while her father worked in economic development. She cites her earliest political experience as signing petitions against animal testing in the Body Shop. A Liberal Democrat supporter since she was at school, Jo joined the Liberal Democrats aged 17, while studying Management at the LSE. During her time at university, she worked as a Research Assistant for the Employers’ Forum on Disability. After graduating, Swinson moved to Hull, working as Viking FM’s Marketing & PR Manager. Aged 21, she stood against John Prescott at the 2001 general election in Hull East. Relocating back to Scotland, she worked as Marketing Manager for SpaceandPeople Plc and then as Communications Officer for the UK Public Health Association prior to her election as an MP. In 2011, she married Duncan Hames, who was the Liberal Democrat MP for Chippenham from 2010 to 2015, and is now an anti-corruption campaigner. The couple have two sons. What is Jo Swinson’s political background? Swinson was successfully elected to Parliament in 2005, winning East Dunbartonshire from Labour. In the Commons, she became a Lib Dem whip and spokesperson for culture, media and sport, before being promoted to Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland in 2006. Swinson gained additional responsibility in 2007 becoming Shadow Women and Equality Minister. She returned to the backbenches later that year, before becoming Shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in 2008, retaining this role until the 2010 election.
    [Show full text]
  • Right‐Wing Populism and Climate Change Denial
    Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 00, No. 0, 2020, pp. 1--21 Right-Wing Populism and Climate Change Denial: The Roles of Exclusionary and Anti-Egalitarian Preferences, Conservative Ideology, and Antiestablishment Attitudes Kirsti M. Jylha¨ * Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm, Sweden and Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Sweden Kahl Hellmer Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Sweden Populist right-wing politicians and voters tend to dismiss climate change. To in- vestigate possible reasons for this, we tested correlations between climate change denial and variables linked to right-wing populism (Study 1: N = 1,587; Study 2: N = 909). The strongest predictor of climate change denial was an index capturing exclusionary and anti-egalitarian preferences (opposition to, e.g., multicultural- ism and feminism), followed by traditional values (Study 1) and Social Dominance Orientation (Study 2). Populist antiestablishment attitudes correlated only weakly with climate change denial, and this correlation vanished when exclusionary and anti-egalitarian preferences were controlled for. Also, the effects of authoritarian- ism (Study 2) and (low) openness vanished in the full models. Climate change de- nial did not correlate with (low) agreeableness, which is a personality trait linked to populism. However, both antiestablishment attitudes and climate change denial correlated with pseudoscientific beliefs (e.g., anti-vaccination attitudes) (Study 1). To conclude, we did not find support for a notable linkage between climate change ∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kirsti M. Jylha,¨ Institute for Futures Studies, SE-101 31, Stockholm, Sweden [e-mail: [email protected]]. Acknowledgements: We are thankful for the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments on the previous draft of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Establishment Coalition Governments in Southern Europe: Greece and Italy
    Anti-establishment coalition governments in Southern Europe: Greece and Italy Vasiliki Georgiadou Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, 136 Syngrou Ave. 17671, Athens, Greece. Email: [email protected] Jenny Mavropoulou Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, 136 Syngrou Ave. 17671, Athens, Greece. Email: [email protected] Abstract Anti-establishment parties with either a left-wing or a right-wing ideological slant have been entering contemporary European Democracies with sizeable vote shares. During the Great Recession, the Greek and the Italian party system could be perceived as convergent case-studies for the formation and breakthrough of anti-establishment parties. Given the fact that ideologically diverging anti- establishment parties – the Coalition of the Radical Left - Social Unionist Front (SYRIZA) and the Independent Greeks (ANEL) in the Greek case, as well as the Five Star Movement (M5S) and the League in the Italian one – came to power and formed coalition governments, the primary goal of this article is to enquire into supply-side parameters, exploring potential associations along a range of programmatic stances and policy dimensions that effectuated these governing alliances. Using the Comparative Manifesto Project dataset, our findings confirm the existence of expected programmatic differences as well as a converging policymaking basis between the anti-establishment coalition partners of both governing alliances. Keywords: anti-establishment parties, SYRIZA, ANEL, M5S, League, supply-side,
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Spectrum -- a System of Classifying Different Political Positions Upon One Or More Geometric Axes Radical Liberal Moderate Conservative Reactionary
    The Political Spectrum -- a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes Radical Liberal Moderate Conservative Reactionary The Traditional One-Dimensional Political Spectrum Radical LIBERAL Moderate Conservative Reactionary Favors _________________progress and _________________;reform Works for reform _________________within existing systems; looks to the _____________future for an improved society Favors government intervention in _________________________the economy (to improve treatment of people and the environment) Wants government to stay out of _______________________social matters (to allow expansion of rights) Radical Liberal Moderate CONSERVATIVE Reactionary Favors society _________________as it is or a _________________return to what society ________________________;once was opposed to abrupt change; Values ____________________tradition Wants government to stay out of _________________________the economy (to conserve freedom of action & maintain limited government) Favors government intervention in _______________________social matters (to conserve traditional values) RADICAL Liberal Moderate Conservative Reactionary Favors _________________dramatic and _________________immediate change; Change comes in the form of a new _________________________society or a ________________________________new political system Radical Liberal Moderate Conservative REACTIONARY Favors _________________dramatic and _________________immediate change; Change comes in the form of a new _________________________restoration
    [Show full text]
  • British Politics and Policy at LSE: Why Major Party Reforms Had to Be Sidelined During Jeremy Corbyn’S Leadership Page 1 of 2
    British Politics and Policy at LSE: Why major party reforms had to be sidelined during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership Page 1 of 2 Why major party reforms had to be sidelined during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership Bradley Ward argues that while Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership was initially drawn towards a more grassroots vision of rank-and-file democracy, this came into tension with the demands facing the leadership in the context of intense intra-party factionalism. In a Brexit-dominated political landscape, the constraints facing internal party democracy meant that major party reforms were increasingly sidelined. Despite the promise to continue with the legacy of his predecessor, Keir Starmer’s first twelve months in office have been characterised by glaring attempts to distance his ‘new leadership’ from the last vestiges of Corbynism. This is evidenced by Rebecca Long-Bailey’s sacking from the Shadow Cabinet; the decision to withhold the whip from Jeremy Corbyn and ban local parties from discussing the case; the dismantling of the Community Organising Unit; the policy of ‘abstentionism’ on bills seen as anathema to progressive values; and an unwillingness to embrace some of the more daring policies of the previous leader. For many critics on the left, these moves have divided the party at a time when everyone should be working together to tackle the big issues of the day. Those who defend Starmer, however, see these moves as important first steps towards showing the rest of ‘the country they have their Labour Party back again’ after the rollercoaster of the previous five years. The difference between Corbyn and Starmer becomes even more pronounced if we look at internal party politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Labour's Next Majority Means Winning Over Conservative Voters but They Are Not Likely to Be the Dominant Source of The
    LABOUR’S NEXT MAJORITY THE 40% STRATEGY Marcus Roberts LABOUR’S The 40% There will be voters who go to the polls on 6th May 2015 who weren’t alive strategy when Tony and Cherie Blair posed outside 10 Downing Street on 1st May NEXT 1997. They will have no memory of an event which is a moment of history as distant from them as Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 election victory was for the voters of 1997. If Ed Miliband seeks to emulate what Blair did in 1997, he too must build his own political majority for the era in which he seeks to govern. MAJORITY This report sets out a plausible strategy for Labour’s next majority, one that is secured through winning 40 per cent of the popular vote in May 2015, despite the challenges of a fragmenting electorate. It also challenges the Marcus Roberts party at all levels to recognise that the 40 per cent strategy for a clear majority in 2015 will require a different winning formula to that which served New Labour so well a generation ago, but which is past its sell-by date in a different political and economic era. A FABIAN REPORT ISBN 978 0 7163 7004 8 ABOUT THE FABIAN SOCIETY The Fabian Society is Britain’s oldest political think tank. Since 1884 the society has played a central role in developing political ideas and public policy on the left. It aims to promote greater equality of wealth, power and opportunity; the value of collective public action; a vibrant, tolerant and accountable democracy; citizenship, liberty and human rights; sustainable development; and multilateral international cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Brexit, the 2019 General Election and the Realignment of British
    Brexit, the 2019 General Election and the Realignment of British Politics David Cutts, Matthew Goodwin, Oliver Heath and Paula Surridge Abstract. The outcome of the 2019 general election—a resounding Conservative majority and an unprecedented defeat for Labour – delivered a decisive electoral verdict for the first time in recent years following a period where British politics has been characterised by instability and indecision. In this article, we draw on aggregate-level data to conduct an initial exploration of the vote. What was the impact of Brexit on the 2019 general election result? How far has Brexit reshaped electoral politics? Was 2019 a ‘realignment election’? And, if so, what are the implications? With a focus on England and Wales we show that although the Conservatives made gains deep into Labour’s working-class heartlands, these gains have been a long time coming, reflected in Labour’s weakening relationship with working-class Britain. As such, 2019 is not a critical election but a continuation of longer-term trends of dealignment and realignment in British politics. Keywords: general election, Brexit, voting, turnout, Britain 1 Introduction The 2019 general election marked another watershed moment in a tumultuous period in British politics. It was the third general election to be held in four years and the ninth major electoral contest in a decade. The election took place against the backdrop of Brexit, the failure of MPs to pass a Brexit deal and then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s inability to secure sufficient support for the timetable of his proposed Withdrawal Agreement Bill.1 The 2019 election was thus widely seen as the latest episode in Britain’s political drama over Brexit.
    [Show full text]
  • Defence and Security After Brexit Understanding the Possible Implications of the UK’S Decision to Leave the EU Compendium Report
    Defence and security after Brexit Understanding the possible implications of the UK’s decision to leave the EU Compendium report James Black, Alex Hall, Kate Cox, Marta Kepe, Erik Silfversten For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1786 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: HMS Vanguard (MoD/Crown copyright 2014); Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4, A Chinook Helicopter of 18 Squadron, HMS Defender (MoD/Crown copyright 2016); Cyber Security at MoD (Crown copyright); Brexit (donfiore/fotolia); Heavily armed Police in London (davidf/iStock) RAND Europe is a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.rand.org/randeurope Defence and security after Brexit Preface This RAND study examines the potential defence and security implications of the United Kingdom’s (UK) decision to leave the European Union (‘Brexit’).
    [Show full text]
  • UK's New Green Age: a Step Change in Transport Decarbonisation
    THE UK’S NEW GREEN AGE A step change in transport decarbonisation January 2021 CONTENTS Alstom in the UK i The UK’s net zero imperative 1 Electrification 7 Hydrogen 15 High speed rail 26 A regional renaissance with green transport for all places 32 Conclusion 43 The New Green Age: a step change in transport decarbonisation ALSTOM IN THE UK Mobility by nature Alstom is a world leader in delivering sustainable and smart mobility systems, from high speed trains, regional and suburban trains, undergrounds (metros), trams and e-buses, to integrated systems, infrastructure, signalling and digital mobility. Alstom has been at the heart of the UK’s rail industry for over a century, building many of the UK’s rail vehicles, half of London’s Tube trains and delivering tram systems. A third of all rail journeys take place on Alstom trains including the iconic Pendolino trains on the West Coast Mainline, which carry 34 million passengers a year. Building on its history, Alstom continues to innovate. One of its most important projects is hydrogen trains—its Coradia iLint has been in service in Germany and Austria, and with Eversholt Rail, it has developed the ‘Breeze’ hydrogen train for the UK. Alstom’s state-of-the-art Transport Technology Centre in Widnes in the Liverpool City Region is its worldwide centre for train modernisation and is where the conversion of trains to hydrogen power will take place. It is among 12 other sites in the UK including Longsight in Manchester and Wembley in London. Across the world Alstom has developed, built and maintained transport systems including high speed rail in every continent that has high speed rail, and mass transit metros and trams schemes including in Nottingham and Dublin.
    [Show full text]
  • Clarifying the Structure and Nature of Left-Wing Authoritarianism
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology PREPRINT © 2021 American Psychological Association In press. Not the version of record. Final version DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000341 Clarifying the Structure and Nature of Left-wing Authoritarianism Thomas H. Costello, Shauna M. Bowes Sean T. Stevens Emory University New York University Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Irwin D. Waldman, Arber Tasimi Scott O. Lilienfeld Emory University Emory University University of Melbourne Authoritarianism has been the subject of scientific inquiry for nearly a century, yet the vast majority of authoritarianism research has focused on right-wing authoritarianism. In the present studies, we inves- tigate the nature, structure, and nomological network of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), a construct famously known as “the Loch Ness Monster” of political psychology. We iteratively construct a meas- ure and data-driven conceptualization of LWA across six samples (N = 7,258) and conduct quantitative tests of LWA’s relations with over 60 authoritarianism-related variables. We find that LWA, right- wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation reflect a shared constellation of personality traits, cognitive features, beliefs, and motivational values that might be considered the “heart” of au- thoritarianism. Still, relative to right-wing authoritarians, left-wing authoritarians were lower in dog- matism and cognitive rigidity, higher in negative emotionality, and expressed stronger support for a political system with substantial centralized state control. Our results also indicate that LWA power- fully predicts behavioral aggression and is strongly correlated with participation in political violence. We conclude that a movement away from exclusively right-wing conceptualizations of authoritarian- ism may be required to illuminate authoritarianism’s central features, conceptual breadth, and psycho- logical appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • Adapting to Change UK Policy Towards the Arctic Polar Regions Department Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street, London SW1A 2AH
    Adapting To Change UK policy towards the Arctic Polar Regions Department Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street, London SW1A 2AH © Crown copyright 2013. You may re-use this information (not Any enquiries regarding this including logos) free of charge in any publication should be sent to us format or medium, under the terms of at [email protected]. the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www. This publication is available for download nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ at www.official-documents.gov.uk. opengovernment-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU,or email: [email protected]. Adapting To Change UK policy towards the Arctic i - Adapting To Change - UK policy towards the Arctic Mark Simmonds Minister for the Polar Regions Foreign and Commonwealth Office Adapting To Change - UK policy towards the Arctic - ii Foreword “There is no doubt that the Arctic is on the frontier of global climate change impacts. Temperatures are rising twice as fast in the Arctic as over the rest of the world.” The Arctic has proved, time and again, to be As this document sets out, the United Kingdom one of the most dynamic and influential regions will continue to support and respect the sovereign of the world, despite its remoteness from large rights of the Arctic States to exercise jurisdiction population centres and its often challenging over their territory; the people who live and work geographical and climatic conditions. in the Arctic; and the unique and fragile natural environment. At the same time it outlines the The United Kingdom is not an Arctic State, but United Kingdom’s legitimate interests in the we are the Arctic’s nearest neighbour.
    [Show full text]