,
6 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Little teaser for you all from my forthcoming "Brexitland" book with @smthgsmthg - I'm currently working on a chapter looking at the politics of Commonwealth immigration during the "first wave" (1948-81). Thanks to @drjennings I have discovered a fascinating poll...1/?
@smthgsmthg @drjennings 2/? In 1967, a year before Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, Gallup asked people whether they though immigration had benefitted or harmed Britain. The twist? They asked the question twice, once about "Commonwealth immigration", once about "Irish immigration" 2/?
@smthgsmthg @drjennings Immigration from Ireland was much higher in this period than immigration from the Commonwealth, so if answers to this question were driven by "real concerns" about pressure from migration on jobs, housing, services, etc then negative views of Irish imms shld be higher 3/?
@smthgsmthg @drjennings Here's how it actually turned out:
60% saw Commonwealth immigration as harmful.
Just 20% felt same way about the much more substantial, and unrestricted Irish immigration
Immigration views then, as now, were driven much more by identity than by economics or experience 4/4
60% saw Commonwealth immigration as harmful.
Just 20% felt same way about the much more substantial, and unrestricted Irish immigration
Immigration views then, as now, were driven much more by identity than by economics or experience 4/4
Note that people weren't exactly super-excited about Irish immigration either - only 16% thought it was beneficial. Difference was between "this is harmful" re Commonwealth imm and "shrug emoji" re Irish imm.
That's one big difference between then and now. Much larger chunk of current British public is positive about immigration (regardless of where imms come from), seeing it as beneficial both culturally and economically. We are *more* open to imms now than we used to be.
