DOCSLIB.ORG

Beyond the Westminster Bubble: What People Really Think About Immigration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beyond the Westminster Bubble: What People Really Think About Immigration Report 12/2017 Beyond the Westminster Bubble: What people really think about immigration Henry Newman, Stephen Booth, Aarti Shankar Open Europe | 1 About the Authors Stephen Booth Director of Policy and Research Open Europe is a non-partisan and independent policy think tank. Our mission is to conduct rigorous analysis and produce recommendations on which to Aarti Shankar base the UK’s new relationship with the EU and its Policy Analyst trading relationships with the rest of the world. We aim to ensure that Government policy and public debate is rational and well informed. Acknowledgments Many thanks to the team at ICM for their work on In the wake of the UK’s vote to leave the EU, our the quantitative poll, and at Public First for conduct- programme of research and consultation will focus ing the focus groups. particularly on: We are also grateful for the hard work of our interns, • The UK’s new relationship with the EU, including Dominic Walsh, Anders Jay, Hugo Stratton and Enea trade, security and political cooperation. Desideri, in helping to put together this report. • The most important opportunities for new trading relationships with nations outside the EU. • Productive international cooperation across areas Edited by Henry Newman, Director such as immigration, research and development, cross-border investment and financial services. Our starting point is the promotion of democratically grounded economic, trade and investment policies which foster growth, employment and freedom under the rule of law. Guided by these free market and liberal principles, we are committed to an open Europe and an open Britain. Copyright © Open Europe 2017 ISBN: 978-1-907668-52-4 Offices Open Europe Open Europe Brussels Open Europe Berlin 7 Tufton Street Rue du Trône 61 Oranienburger Straße 27 London B-1050 10117 Berlin SW1P 3QN Brussels Germany +44 (0)20 7197 2333 +32 (2) 540 86 25 +49 (0)30 2758 1365 www.openeurope.org.uk [email protected] [email protected] www.openeuropeberlin.de @OpenEurope 2 | Beyond the Westminster Bubble: What people really think about immigration www.openeurope.org.uk @openeurope CONTENTS Foreword 4 Methodology 8 Executive summary 10 1. Introduction 14 1.1 History of immigration to the UK 14 1.2 The politics of immigration in the UK 17 1.3 Immigration in the EU referendum campaign 18 2. Overall attitudes to immigration 21 2.1 Brexit overtakes immigration as the most important issue facing the UK 21 2.2 Public perceptions of immigration at national and local level 22 2.3 Little evidence of strong social concerns about immigration 25 2.4 Little support for an immigration system based on race and ethnic background 26 3. Skills, employment and the labour market 27 3.1 Remain and Leave voters are particularly open to immigrants with “socially useful” skills 27 3.2 Concerns about training for local workforce raised alongside discussions on skills shortages 28 3.3 Focus groups more likely to view immigration as symptomatic of an unfair labour market 29 4. Immigration and public services 30 4.1 National perceptions 30 4.2 Local perceptions 30 4.3 The public weigh immigration against other factors 32 5. Immigration and access to welfare 33 5.1 Polling findings reveal public consensus for restricting immigrants’ access to welfare 33 5.2 Focus groups believe “soft” UK benefits system fuels reliance on immigration 34 6. Immigration control – what would receive public consent? 36 6.1 Public support reducing immigration, but opinion of government target is mixed 36 6.2 Public support flexibility over reduction 37 6.3 Flexible and selective immigration systems attract stronger and more certain public support 38 6.4 Leave and Remain consensus for increasing criminal background checks on immigrants 39 6.5 Public largely unwilling to suffer negative economic consequences from reducing immigration 40 7. Conclusion 42 Annex I – Literature Review 45 Annex II – ICM poll questionnaire and results 50 Annex III – Public First focus group findings 66 Open Europe | 3 Chapter Heading Foreword 4 | Beyond the Westminster Bubble: What people really think about immigration www.openeurope.org.uk @openeurope The British people’s decision that the UK should leave the European Union in that historic referendum on 23 June 2016 has challenged politicians of all parties to map a way forward. I believe that the referendum outcome must be acted upon – the UK must leave the European Union – and that we all need to start considering what UK policies we need post- Brexit. One of the central issues, and a huge public concern, is the management of immigration. It affects our economy and labour market policies, our border controls and security and community life. This publication, founded on detailed research by Open Europe, offers valuable insight into public attitudes to immigration. It is research we should take heed of and use to help shape a reasonable, fair policy on migration. For some of the left or liberal wings of politics, addressing immigration policy has always been difficult. Aware that reducing or halting immigration has always been a siren call of some deeply unpleasant figures on the extreme right, they have shied away from it. And on the right, there is a body of opinion, certainly in the business community, that a ready supply of migrant workers helps to keep labour costs down, and provides for a more flexible and passive workforce. So elements of left and right have had their own reasons for sidestepping the question of immigration control. Immigration is not easily separated from the UK’s economic needs or from public feelings about their identity. Immigration was one of the most significant concerns for voters in the 2010 and 2015 general elections. The failure of the major parties to address those concerns led to the rise of UKIP. Their presence challenge both Labour and the Conservatives in different ways. I argued that for Labour to shy away from the questions and concerns raised by voters about immigration was an abdication of responsibility. What became very clear in the run up to the European Referendum, was that immigration would dominate public feeling. As YouGov pollster, Freddie Sayers, commented in April 2016: “A recent YouGov poll for ITN showed that 71% of people in the UK think that immigration over the past ten years has been too high – and that includes majorities of all political parties. Even 65% of Liberal Democrat voters – that most expansive, internationalist, Europhile group – think too many people are entering the country. If the coming referendum were only a decision on immigration, the Leave campaign would win by a landslide.” This is just one reason that all parties would be wise to think ahead and consider future policy on migration. I believe that the UK, like many other countries, can agree a fair- minded, sensible policy on migration which accords with the best of British values of openness and tolerance. The UK will require workers, students and visitors from abroad, for many years to come. The UK will also have many residents who choose to live abroad for part of their life, many in the European Union. So this issue requires balance and understanding, about people’s aspirations and about the needs of business. This research shows the public understand this too. Their concern was not to end all immigration. But, by two to one, they support a fixed number of work permits being issued each year. They recognise that migrants may need access to our NHS, but believe that benefits and the right to social housing should be earned. Open Europe | 5 Foreword The public also see a direct link between giving UK citizens the right skills to take jobs, and the need to import labour from abroad. I believe the UK can reach a fair position, which controls migration, improves security at UK borders and reaches an amicable arrangement with the European Union 27. It is in our interests to do so. I also have faith that we can agree a reasonable immigration policy that works for Britain, which the British people will support. I therefore welcome this important, and challenging, research. I hope it encourages more of the debate we need on a topic that is central to the Brexit negotiations and life post-Brexit. Rt Hon Caroline Flint MP Labour Member for Don Valley 6 | Beyond the Westminster Bubble: What people really think about immigration www.openeurope.org.uk @openeurope As a first generation immigrant, I know firsthand that people choose this country because of its tolerance and opportunity. Britain is one of the most welcoming countries in the world, as evident from the diversity and number of people who choose to work and settle here. Nevertheless, immigration has been a polarising issue in British politics for over a decade. Governments of all shades have failed to deliver immigration policies that have broad public support. The referendum result has been used by people on both sides of the immigration debate to support their pre- existing agendas. Some have claimed it as a mandate to pull up the drawbridge regardless of the economic consequences. Others have labelled all Leave voters as nativist “Little Englanders”. The vote in June 2016 was a referendum on EU membership, not on immigration. I believe that the vote for Brexit was a vote of confidence in a global, outward-looking United Kingdom. Brexit is both a wake-up call and an opportunity for politicians to meaningfully reconnect with voters on a range of issues, including immigration. Part of becoming more global and outward-looking is the need to design and control our own migration policies and regulations. As we decide our country’s future, it is important that we engage with how people really view the costs and benefits of immigration, not in caricatures.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Written Evidence from the Public Relations and Communications Association1 (PGG12)
    Written evidence from the Public Relations and Communications Association1 (PGG12) The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Propriety of governance in light of Greensill inquiry Executive Summary: As the voice of the public affairs and lobbying industry, we believe that lobbying is integral to a thriving democracy and contributes positively to the decision-making process. However, the Government must make a number of reforms to improve transparency, accountability, and trust in the UK political system. The Lobbying Act should be expanded to cover all of those engaged in lobbying – the inclusion of in-house lobbyists is crucial for public confidence. The interactions covered by the Act should be expanded to include Special Advisers and senior civil servants, from Director General level up. The Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists should no longer allow registrants to declare self-written and self-policed codes which are neither independent nor independently enforceable. The Government should extend the existing limitations on former Ministers taking paid lobbying positions and institute a five-year ban, including on in-house roles. Former Ministers should consistently behave in the spirit of the Nolan Principles. Ministers should stop ignoring the rules under which they are legally obliged to publish Ministerial Diaries in a timely manner. The process governing the award of Parliamentary Passes should be reviewed and tightened significantly. Detailed Commentary: The PRCA’s response addresses the following issues: 1 The Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry. The PRCA is the world’s largest professional PR body. We represent and regulate more than 35,000 PR professionals in 70 countries worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF on Watching the Watchmen
    REPORT Watching the Watchmen The Growing Case for Recall Elections and Increased Accountability for MPs Sam Goodman About the Author Sam Goodman is the author of the Imperial Premiership: The Role of the Modern Prime Minister in Foreign Policy Making, 1964-2015 (Manchester University Press: 2015). He is currently working as a political adviser to Peter Dowd MP the current Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and has previously worked for a variety of Labour Members of Parliament including: Julie Cooper MP, Sir Mark Hendrick MP, Michael Dugher MP, and Rt. Hon Jack Straw MP. Watching the Watchmen: The Growing Case for Recall Elections and Increased Accountability for MPs Members of the House of Commons have long flirted parliamentary conventions and much procedure with the idea of British exceptionalism—citing the is arcane, which makes it difficult even for the UK’s role as the ‘mother of all parliaments’, its most ardent politically engaged citizen to follow unwritten constitution, its unitary voting system, proceedings and debates in the House of Commons. and the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament This separation between the governors and over the people—as a bulwark against the instability governed is exacerbated further by the limited customarily found in other western democracies. avenues available to the public to hold those elected In modern times, this argument held water as to account, which is exemplified by recent political it delivered stable parliamentary majorities, scandals, including allegations of bullying and peaceful transfers of power between governments, sexual harassment in the House of Commons. At the and kept in check the ideological fringes of both time of writing this report, no MP has been forced major political parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Representation and Reform in the House of Lords
    Our House: Reflections on Representation and Reform in the House of Lords Edited by Caroline Julian About ResPublica ResPublica is an independent, non-partisan UK think tank founded by Phillip Blond in November 2009. In July 2011, the ResPublica Trust was established as a not-for-profit entity which oversees all of ResPublica’s domestic work. We focus on developing practical solutions to enduring socio-economic and cultural problems of our time, such as poverty, asset inequality, family and social breakdown, and environmental degradation. ResPublica Essay Collections ResPublica’s work draws together some of the most exciting thinkers in the UK and internationally to explore the new polices and approaches that will create and deliver a new political settlement. Our network of contributors who advise on and inform our work include leaders from politics, business, civil society and academia. Through our publications, compendiums and website we encourage other thinkers, politicians and members of the public to join the debate and contribute to the development of forward-thinking and innovative ideas. We intend our essay collections to stimulate balanced debate around issues that are fundamental to our core principles. Contents Foreword by Professor John Milbank and Professor Simon Lee, Trustees, 1 The ResPublica Trust 1. Introduction 4 Caroline Julian, ResPublica 2. A Statement from the Government 9 Mark Harper MP, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform A Social Purpose 3. A Truly Representative House of Lords 13 The Rt Hon Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead 4. Association and Civic Participation 16 Dr Adrian Pabst, University of Kent 5. Bicameralism & Representative Democracy: An International Perspective 23 Rafal Heydel-Mankoo 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Devolution What the UK Needs Post- Brexit?
    Is Devolution what the UK needs post- Brexit? What does devolution look like in the UK in a post-Brexit landscape? Now the UK has formally left the EU, can we expect more powers coming back to the UK, and if so, where do they go? Will they be based in London, or be spread across the regions, and countries, in the years to come? The House of Lords could soon be leaving London and moving north, in a bid to burst the Westminster bubble and move political powers to regions where the Conservatives made gains in the 2019 General Election. The support for another Scottish referendum is also increasing, with Pollster stating that the ‘yes’ vote for leaving the UK has gone up to 52% following the UK’s formal departure of the EU. Could Scotland leaving the UK have a knock on effect for Wales and Northern Ireland, and are we looking at the possibility of the UK breaking up in the future? In this episode, we are joined by Professor John Clancy, Visiting Professor at the Centre for Brexit Studies and former leader of Birmingham City Council, and Dr Leslie Budd, Visiting Professor at the Centre for Brexit Studies and Reader in Social Enterprise at the Open University Business School. The experts discuss the history of devolution, Boris Johnson’s plans to devolve more powers from central government to local government, the impact that metro mayors and combined authorities have had on regions across the UK, if devolution could bring the UK closer together, or further apart, and much more.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Government Communication: the Cameron Years and Their Ongoing Legacy
    UK Government Communication: the Cameron years and their ongoing legacy. 1. Introduction This paper chronicles in detail the changes in the UK Government Communication Service (GCS) from the period immediately following the election of the Coalition Government led by David Cameron (May 2010 – May 2015), to the point where, as leader of a Conservative Government from May 2015, he resigned following the referendum vote to leave the European Union (EU) on 23rd June 2016. It also covers the legacy-effects and on-going nature of those changes as appropriate. It sets these events within the broader context of the development of UK Government communication. It looks briefly at its origins, but has a particular interest in the period from the 1956 when the dispersed communication activities in Government were first formally brought together and co-ordinated under a Cabinet Office Minister. The Cabinet Office co- ordinates all cross-government communication activities so this action centralised control. The theoretical approach to the paper is historiological, but it is not purely descriptive. It seeks to offer an explanatory perspective offering a 60 year periodisation viewpoint (Bentele, 2015) of UK Government Communication from 1956 to 2016 and this, along with the detailed analysis of the Cameron years, is its original contribution. The Cameron years were ones of change and challenge as the two Governments he led dealt with the aftermath of the economic crisis which was at its height just before the Coalition Government, which he led, came into power. Other touchstone events were the Scottish Referendum on 14th September 2014 where the people of Scotland voted 55.3% against independence and 44.7% in favour.
    [Show full text]
  • This Item Was Submitted to Loughborough's
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Loughborough University Institutional Repository This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions. For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ David Deacon, Dominic Wring, & Peter Golding Loughborough University Communication Research Centre Same Campaign, Differing Agendas: analysing news media coverage of the 2005 General Election1 Abstract: This analysis of the 2005 general election focuses on the way the formal campaign was reported, in their different ways, by national and local broadcasters and newspapers. Having assessed how much attention the various news media devoted to the election, Norris et al’s (1999) tri-partite distinction between the so-called ‘stop watch’, ‘agenda’ and ‘directional’ balances is applied to explore the relative prominence and positive/negative attention given to competing actors and issues. The analysis also compares how the major respective broadcasters and newspapers covered the campaign from their national (UK wide, Scottish and Welsh) and local (East Midlands) perspectives. There is further discussion of how the rival sectors (i.e. ‘popular’, ‘mid-market’ and ‘quality’ press, radio and television) reported the election in quite distinctive ways for their particular audiences. Various other themes, notably the ‘presidential’, ‘soundbite’, partisan and gendered nature of the coverage are considered. It is demonstrated how certain news media promoted the issues of ‘Iraq’, ‘Immigration and Asylum’ and ‘Impropriety’ onto the agenda at different stages during the campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • How Pre-Parliamentary Po- Litical Experience Affects Political Careers in the House of Commons
    ORBIT-OnlineRepository ofBirkbeckInstitutionalTheses Enabling Open Access to Birkbeck’s Research Degree output Bring in the professionals: how pre-parliamentary po- litical experience affects political careers in the House of Commons https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/40042/ Version: Full Version Citation: Allen, Peter (2014) Bring in the professionals: how pre- parliamentary political experience affects political careers in the House of Commons. [Thesis] (Unpublished) c 2020 The Author(s) All material available through ORBIT is protected by intellectual property law, including copy- right law. Any use made of the contents should comply with the relevant law. Deposit Guide Contact: email 1 Bring in the professionals: how pre- parliamentary political experience affects political careers in the House of Commons Peter Allen Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics Department of Politics Birkbeck, University of London 2 I declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Signed…………………………………. Peter Allen 3 Abstract In this thesis I use original empirical data to examine the impact of the political experience of MPs before they enter parliament on their careers once inside the House of Commons. The contribution I make to knowledge is twofold. First, I build on existing literature in the field by developing a stand-alone classification of pre-parliamentary political experience that distinguishes between experience gained on the local level, for example as a local councillor, and experience gained on the national level, working for an MP or in the head office of a political party. Second, I empirically operationalise this classification and support it adopting quantitative research techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and Public Opinion 2019
    Foreword It’s a great pleasure to write a few words at the start of one of the most thorough and, I think, interesting reports that we at the UK in a Changing Europe have produced. It hardly needs saying that public attitudes towards Brexit and the numerous issues related to it have been central to our political debates since at least 2016. Even after the referendum itself, protagonists on all sides of what seems like the endless debate about EU membership have invoked the notion of ‘the will of the people’ in support of their claims. What people voted for, and what they wanted from Brexit of course remain crucial issues. As politicians try to address popular concerns, the congruence, or otherwise, of their views with those of both the public at large and their own members will be crucial. Meanwhile, new or continued divisions within the country will continue to have a disruptive impact on our politics going forward. These and many other themes are addressed in the contributions that follow. I would, as ever, like to express my thanks and appreciation to all those who have contribute to this collection, who have responded with good humour and alacrity to my repeated comments and naggings: Tim Bale, Coree Brown Swan, Noah Carl, Philip Cowley, John Curtice, Bobby Duffy, Geoff Evans, Robert Ford, Jonathan Grant, Anthony Heath, Ailsa Henderson, Sara Hobolt, David Howarth, Charlie Jeffery, Will Jennings, Sunder Katwala, Jac Larner, Hui Lu, Ian Montagu, Monica Poletti, Alexandra Pollitt, Jamie Pow, Lindsay Richards, Charlene Rohr, Florian Schaffner, Gerry Stoker, Paula Surridge, James Tilley, Alan Wager, Stefanie Walter, Ian Warren, Paul Webb, Daniel Wincott and Richard Wyn Jones.
    [Show full text]
  • A ROAD MAP for LABOUR by Rt Hon PETER HAIN MP Leader of The
    A ROAD MAP FOR LABOUR By Rt Hon PETER HAIN MP Leader of the House of Commons and Secretary of State for Wales Second Aneurin Bevan Memorial Lecture 20th June 2003 Sponsored by GMB Union Reverse title page Published in Wales by The Bevan Foundation Aneurin Bevan House 40 Castle Street Tredegar Blaenau Gwent Tel. / Fax 01495 725214 Email: [email protected] www.bevanfoundation.org First impression – September 2003 ISBN 1-904767-05-02 £4.00 / £3.00 for Bevan Foundation members plus £1.50 postage and packing. Printed by XXXXXXXXX Photos: Keith Pattison Ltd Tel 0191 2610884 C 2003 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recorded or otherwise without the prior express permission of The Bevan Foundation. The Bevan Foundation is a new, independent, radical think tank for Wales. We aim to develop fresh thinking, ideas and action on the issues facing people in Wales today. We value diversity and equality of opportunity, the empowerment of disadvantaged people and communities, and the promotion of social cohesion and social justice. To join the Foundation please contact us or visit our website www.bevanfoundation.org Page 1 PREFACE It gave me great pleasure on behalf of my organisation, the GMB – Britain’s General Union – to chair the Second Aneurin Bevan Annual Lecture held on 20th June 2003 at the Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff. The lecture, organised by the Bevan Foundation and delivered by Peter Hain MP, was in the true spirit of Nye Bevan and its theme was close to all our hearts.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 50 Political Influencers
    TOP 50 POLITICAL INFLUENCERS TOP 50 POLITICAL INFLUENCERS TOP 50 POLITICAL INFLUENCERS Introduction With 29 March and the Brexit deadline fast approaching, there’s never been a more exciting time to cover politics – but with the media in rapid flux, who really sets the agenda? When it comes to politics, the digital media environment continues to develop in novel, sometimes unanticipated, ways – with some serious consequences. New media have radically altered the ways in which Government institutions operate, political leaders communicate, and campaigns are fought. While every major vote since Obama’s first presidential victory in 2008 has been heralded as some kind of ‘social media’ event, in the UK the 2016 referendum and 2017 General Election broke new ground with alternative political voices not only loudly opposing mainstream views, but also seeming to wield genuine influence over the electoral outcomes. The work of unashamedly partisan individuals or small collectives, at least part of the appeal of this new commentariat was their distance from the Westminster bubble. Although new media has complicated the political media system, it has by no means dismantled it. Legacy media – radio and television news programmes, even newspapers – coexist with Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Indeed, content produced by the mainstream is fed upon by emerging influencers, increasing its reach and impact even as it is transformed under the weight of myriad digital judgements. The Top 50 Political Influencers reflects this evolving media, including broadcasters and print journalists in addition to bloggers and other digital influencers. Those on the list include the most politically informed, those with the best contacts and membership of the right WhatsApp groups for the inside track on breaking news and the latest leaks, and those able to lead conversations across a range of social media platforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Quo Vadis? Identity, Policy and the Future of the European Union Policy’ Identity of the European Union in the Post-Crisis Period
    March 2017 The aim of this eBook is to focus on the post-crisis ‘socio-economic Union of the European policy and the future Identity, Quo Vadis? policy’ identity of the European Union in the post-crisis period. The emphasis is not on where the EU has come from but where it appears Quo Vadis? Identity, to be going, where it should be going and what sorts of difficulties this might imply for the success of the EU and its various major policy domains. This is perhaps best understood by focusing on the EU’s economic policy ‘identity markers’ prior to the crisis and what has policy and the emerged in the aftermath. The policy identity of the EU has evolved a long way from its 1990s future of the emphasis on solidarity, a budding social Europe, and a broadening of competencies. Electorates and governments alike have long forgot the war-torn origins of the beast. Instead, members vote to leave. An identity based on self-insurance, stagnation, decision-making inefficiency and European Union introspection would excite populism and extremism in any one country Edited by Thorsten Beck and Geoffrey Underhill and is doing so across the EU. The notion that politics and discretionary policy counts and can deliver (never mind redistribution) appears to have been abandoned. If this redistributional identity and machinery remains moribund and the decision-making machinery paralysed, Brexit will generate imitators in the wings and may be doing so now. So, where does the EU go from here? This volume is all about the re-launch and presents a wide range of, often clashing, ideas about and policy solutions to the dilemmas we face.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence About the Future of Public Service Broadcasting May 2020
    Written evidence submitted by Professor Justin Lewis and Professor Stephen Cushion RE: Evidence about the future of public service broadcasting May 2020 Dear DCMS Committee, We would like to offer evidence for the Future of Public Service Broadcasting Inquiry. We are professors at Cardiff University who have produced research that has been commissioned by the BBC Trust and Ofcom to examine the comparative differences between public service and commercial news media, and we have also published evidence more widely in academic journals. There are three areas we would like to bring to your attention. News generally, devolution reporting, and BBC impartiality in general. 1. We carried out a study commissioned by Ofcom in its review of the BBC’s range and depth of programming - “The Range and Depth of BBC News and Current Affairs: A Content Analysis” - published in October 2019. The full report is here: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/174205/bbc-news-review-content-analysis- full-report.pdf Overall, we found that almost all BBC news outlets focused on ‘hard’ rather than ‘soft’ news, with a high proportion of news about political issues, such as the Conservative leadership contest, Brexit and international affairs. Of the evening television news bulletins, only Channel 4 had a harder news agenda than the BBC News at Ten. This contrasts with news sites such as the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Mirror, which had a much softer news agenda (stories about celebrities, for example). So, for readers of these newspapers, BBC news is a key source of news about public and international affairs.
    [Show full text]