Study shows that more immigration does not lead to more BNP support


by Sunny
20th April, 2010 at 10:29 am    

Finally!
Someone has done a study to back up what I’ve always been saying. And guess what, I bet none of the papers who claim to hate the BNP will report on this ippr study:

—-

The British National Party (BNP) frequently suggests that it attracts support because it is the only party to take into account communities’ ‘real’ experiences of immigration.

ippr has explored whether or not this is the case by looking at the roots of BNP support across 149 local authorities. We conducted regression-based analysis to see whether or not high levels of immigration do raise communities’ support for the BNP, or if other variables – such as political disengagement – are important.

Our findings suggest that areas that have higher levels of recent immigration than others are not more likely to vote for the BNP.

In fact, the more immigration an area has experienced, the lower its support for the far right.

It seems that direct contact with migrants dissuades people from supporting the BNP For example, of the 10 local authorities in which the BNP gained most support in the 2009 European elections, nine had lower than average immigration (with Barking and Dagenham the only anomaly).

Rather, the evidence points to political and socio-economic exclusion as drivers of BNP support. In particular, areas with low average levels of qualifications (which can mean people struggle in today’s flexible, knowledge-based economy), low levels of social cohesion, and low levels of voter turnout (indicating political disenchantment) are the ones that show more BNP support.

We therefore urge mainstream politicians to strongly resist the notion that people have been driven into the arms of the BNP by the harm immigration is causing to their communities.

Instead, they must focus on building strong communities and strong education systems, and on rebuilding trust and confidence in democratic politics, so that marginalised people do not feeling so disconnected. This should enable them to both better serve the interests of these communities, and undercut support for the BNP

——

Download the full study from here.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,Race politics,The BNP






42 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    Blog post:: Study shows that more immigration does not lead to more BNP support http://bit.ly/bGLbGT


  2. Chris Paul

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Study shows that more immigration does not lead to more BNP support http://bit.ly/bGLbGT


  3. Allister Hayman

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Study shows that more immigration does not lead to more BNP support http://bit.ly/bGLbGT


  4. becky pants

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Study shows that more immigration does not lead to more BNP support http://bit.ly/bGLbGT


  5. Immigration Tips

    Pickled Politics » Study shows that more immigration does not lead …: It seems that direct contact with migrants… http://bit.ly/cBFtg0


  6. law

    "Pickled Politics » Study shows that more immigration does not lead …" http://bit.ly/bT3FK1 #immigration


  7. Billy Bragg stands up to the BNP - Page 9

    [...] – have a look at this website. And perhaps even leave a comment on it. It's open to anyone. Pickled Politics Study shows that more immigration does not lead to more BNP support It's about a report that suggests that areas with high immigrant populations have lower than [...]




  1. cjcjc — on 20th April, 2010 at 10:39 am  

    This seems to put the counter argument quite well.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100035376/the-answer-to-the-bnp-is-more-immigration-clever-report-dictates/

    Fight the BNP! More immigration now!

  2. MaidMarian — on 20th April, 2010 at 10:48 am  

    cjcjc – Sorry, that link you provide doesn’t make a counter argument. It is just some hack having a sneer for the DT gallery and is entirely of a piece with the dumbing down of that once great newspaper. A sneer is not an argument.

    Having said that, I am a bit dubious about this report. This seems to say that strong, well functioning communities are less likely to be prone to political extremism and that immigration may or may not be a factor in whether a community is well functioning or not. That is hardly a revelation.

    The rather more interesting question would be whether some ‘categories’ of immigrant integrate better and whether certain ones (especially from particular faith backgrounds) undermine functioning communities.

  3. Sgt Skepper — on 20th April, 2010 at 11:15 am  

    Is there any information on long-term immigration? I’m from Burnley and in my experience, those supporting the BNP have a grudge against the Asian population which was established decades ago, rather than any recent immigration.

    I’m not claiming this as the main reason for the BNP’s support or even claiming to know the answer to that. I’m just curious as to whether that was looked into?

  4. persephone — on 20th April, 2010 at 11:55 am  

    “The rather more interesting question would be whether some ‘categories’ of immigrant integrate better and whether certain ones (especially from particular faith backgrounds) undermine functioning communities.”

    I am not sure why the spotlight is to be diverted to immigrants & integration when a formal study by a reputable orgn points to the communities that support the bnp are not integrated enough into wider society as evidenced by the following IPPR study excerpt:

    “evidence points to political and socio-economic exclusion as drivers of BNP support. In particular, areas with low average levels of qualifications (which can mean people struggle in today’s flexible, knowledge-based economy), low levels of social cohesion, and low levels of voter turnout”

    It means these (non immigrant) communities are the ones in need of assimilation, lets discuss that.

  5. earwicga — on 20th April, 2010 at 11:58 am  

    Can somebody point me towards a reputable study which examines levels of racism in ethnically diverse areas compared with the areas which aren’t?

  6. Lightan — on 20th April, 2010 at 11:58 am  

    In particular, areas with low average levels of qualifications… low levels of social cohesion, and low levels of voter turnout (indicating political disenchantment) are the ones that show more BNP support

    Aha! So it’s not Labour’s hyper-immigration policies that have propped up the BNP.

    It’s actually the rest of Labour’s policies (education, social cohesion, income inequality) that have done it!

    At least now we all know.

  7. persephone — on 20th April, 2010 at 12:05 pm  

    @ 6

    Perhaps the correlation can be linked with personal motivation to succeed. Immigrants have succeeded despite income inequality – an article I read this week mentioned a study that revealed immigrants earned 40% less. Plus as immigrants they will also have had less social cohesion.

  8. Refresh — on 20th April, 2010 at 12:13 pm  

    In a way it also links in with another study of some years ago which supported the argument that right wingers tended to be less confident about their place in the world compared to progressives. I am sure there is an anthropological basis to all this.

    So if you want to create a society which is rightwing, then make sure they live in fear of each other and the outside world.

    A confident society looks ahead, a weakened community remains insular.

  9. Kismet Hardy — on 20th April, 2010 at 12:23 pm  

    The only way the BNP supporters will sway is if the Tories come out and say: ‘Don’t worry chaps, we’re back. We’ll send ‘em back for you.’

    They’ve decided to play it at ‘nicey nicey’ so they’re not going to, which means the average BNP supporter will carry on harbouring his hatred for johnny F because he lost his job to a polish plumber or got short-changed buying his copy of Razzle by the beardy shopkeeper and saw the girl from the council block he’s loved since a little boy walking hand in hand with a black man in the cruel rain…

  10. magistra — on 20th April, 2010 at 1:26 pm  

    Is there any information on long-term immigration?

    From a quick look, the immigration data is all pretty recent (2002-2009). But they also use data on the percentage of non-whites in the authority area and that is also negatively correlated with voting for the BNP. That’s not a bad proxy for long-term immigration (or at least the kind of immigration that the BNP object to).

  11. cjcjc — on 20th April, 2010 at 1:40 pm  

    So if the argument is that those next door say to themselves – “look what’s happened there, we don’t want that here” – what is the policy prescription you propose?

  12. MaidMarian — on 20th April, 2010 at 1:44 pm  

    cjcjc – Yes, but I’m not sure what that has to do with immigration. I don’t want chavs moving in next door. The house across the road has been left to go to rack and ruin. I don’t like either, but there is not a lot I can do about it.

    Maybe my neighbours don’t like me – what are they going to do?

    The point is that immigration may or may not be a factor. Like I said earlier, I don’t think it is a particularly strong point, but it is not all about immigrants you know.

  13. Kismet Hardy — on 20th April, 2010 at 2:04 pm  

    It is all about immigrants. In the reputable The Sun, which will dictate the majority of votes after all, they ask a cabbie to put a minister through his paces about matters closest to the working class heart. Look at today’s. Every question is about immigration, other than one about the cost of a Big Mac. I kid you not

  14. douglas clark — on 20th April, 2010 at 2:25 pm  

    Hmm..

    I live in the overspill from a fairly mixed neighbourhood. I quite like the Asians I meet. But I see them talking to white folk I don’t know. They seem to ‘get on’ with each other OK.

    But that can’t be right, can it?

    I think I should hate them all.

    I shall immediately drown any sympathy I had for the human race and start acting like a tit.

    This would appear to me to be what our new chums Dan the Dare and I am English are all about.

    Still, what the hell do I know.

    I’d be interested in what Dan the Dare, or I am English – who probably isn’t – had to say.

  15. douglas clark — on 20th April, 2010 at 2:39 pm  

    IAE @ 15,

    When are you going to get it into your brain dead skull that BNP voters are stupid.

    Let’s cut to the chase here.

    You are stupid.

  16. douglas clark — on 20th April, 2010 at 2:48 pm  

    IAE @ 17,

    You are a dishonest little twerp.

    You claim to represent ‘English’ folk, when you clearly do not.

    You are a usurper.

    Lets take a moment or two on that.

    You claim to represent the typical values of English folk when, in fact, you certainly do not.

    What is the BNP share of the English electorate? It is either invisible or 1%.

    Yet you claim to speak on their behalf?

    Fuck off.

    You, sir, are an idiot.

    And worst of all, a found out idiot on a largely Asian forum.

    You represent no-one.

  17. earwicga — on 20th April, 2010 at 2:58 pm  

    Fuck off.

    You, sir, are an idiot.

    And worst of all, a found out idiot on a largely Asian forum.

    You represent no-one.

    I wholeheartedly second that. Fuck Off IAE.

  18. douglas clark — on 20th April, 2010 at 3:00 pm  

    earwicga,

    Cheers!

  19. damon — on 20th April, 2010 at 3:07 pm  

    I just did a link to this PP thread on ”Politics ie” an Irish website where they were talking about Billy Bragg and Richard Barnbrook coming face to face in Barking.
    http://www.politics.ie/british-general-election-2010/128185-billy-bragg-stands-up-bnp-9.html

    It’s got opinion from all sides. Liberal-left, and reactionary and backward too.

    Being in Ireland, a country that is still new to immigration and diversity, I find it hard to be so down on ignorant people.

    Yesterday evening in south Belfast, I walked past a couple of houses in a street of terraces with front doors opening directly onto the pavement, that have become home to Roma gypsy families.
    It’s a catholic street.

    There were 15 Roma people standing outside their new homes, chatting, with kids running up and down, and teeaged boys riding around on bikes.
    I’ve seen these Roma young people also riding their bikes and being a bit noisy in the Botanic Gardens and around the area.

    Maybe this is unfair of me to bring up the Roma people on here, as they are not like most other migrants and have particular issues, and I don’t think they are what this study wants to focus on too much.

    What does ”immigrants” mean anyway?
    Does it mean the young people from the EU here to work and the Ausies and Kiwis who come on that work visa programme, as well as everyone else?

    I would immagine that breaking different kinds of immigrants down, into those that were going to be quickly beneficial to a community and economy and those that are going to take more time and resources to become established .. is not something some people would want to dwell on too much.

    My local Roma Big Issue seller already knows me, after only a few days here, and yesterday I said to her ”tomorrow I’ll give you something or buy your paper” and today she was telling me that I had prommised – and I was saying that I was pretty broke too, and just trying to smile my way past her.
    She’s actually quite charming and says ”God bless you” after you walk away having given her nothing.

    I hope that the Roma can do well here and fit in as new Irish/Ulster people in the community.

  20. Sunny — on 20th April, 2010 at 3:13 pm  

    Have banned IAE.

    cjcjc – man you really are a one trick pony. Ed West is going to support your cause? Jebus.

  21. douglas clark — on 20th April, 2010 at 3:14 pm  

    IAE @ 22,

    You say:

    Just more demented ranting and lies with some expletive laden abuse chucked in for good measure.

    I haven’t made any such claims, they are all your inventions; I have not made any claims to represent the BNP either, again this 100% purely your own invention and consequently once again you will not be able to provide any evidence to prove that you are not just a compulsive liar and a air headed smear monger.

    And once again you reveal your tenuous relationship with truth and reality, as well as debate and decency.

    And you are functioning at your highest level here. Pitiful.

    Hmm…

    Let’s break that shit down a bit.

    Just more demented ranting and lies with some expletive laden abuse chucked in for good measure.

    What demented ranting? It is you that seems to quite like the idea of being a demented ranter. Could I quote you, from this very thread?

    OK

    I am English my twisted little friend, but you most certainly are not Scottish. You don’t even know the meaning of the word, quite literally.
    Nor do you even know what nationalism is either but ludicrously choose to cloak yourself in that too.
    You are one of those unfortunate angry, abusive and low rent air heads that every lefty site seems to have and keep on as its ‘useful idiot’ and you are a complete waste of time.

    As already proven, you have no real position on anything and consequently do not debate at all, failing over to the predictable bizarre rants and raves instead.

    I have a position IAE, and it is not yours.

    As far as I know Scottish folk have an idea about citizenship, which you don’t.

    As far as I am concerned, I’d vote for an Asian Scot – without even thinking twice about his asianess – just because I agreed with his ideas.

    You are a horrible racist.

  22. douglas clark — on 20th April, 2010 at 3:16 pm  

    Hmm…

    Thanks – it was getting boring.

  23. Ravi.Nk — on 20th April, 2010 at 3:37 pm  

    In particular, areas with low average levels of qualifications (which can mean people struggle in today’s flexible, knowledge-based economy), low levels of social cohesion, and low levels of voter turnout (indicating political disenchantment) are the ones that show more BNP support.

    This works both ways: immigrants with low average levels of qualifications and low levels of social cohesion can also spell trouble. In both cases, you will have a larger tendency to be a part of extremist parties, like the BNP or Islamist groups. I find it ironic how one side of extremism uses the other side to point out why you should support them. One hand of extremism feeds the other.

    Therefore, I agree that in both cases there is one single solution, governments need to focus on building strong communities and education systems, which is the best remedy against extremism.

  24. douglas clark — on 20th April, 2010 at 3:51 pm  

    Censored Comments @ 25,

    I haven’t an idea who you are.

    You are an idiot if you think that a friendly place such as this is going to take some of the shit that you and your chums have dropped on here.

    This is not what we are about.

  25. earwicga — on 20th April, 2010 at 4:03 pm  

    douglas – a pleasure (now stop feeding the troll) :)

  26. raff — on 20th April, 2010 at 6:32 pm  

    Well, this conversation degenerated pretty quickly!

    I haven’t read the report yet, and have to. This part rings particularly true:

    “Rather, the evidence points to political and socio-economic exclusion as drivers of BNP support. In particular, areas with low average levels of qualifications (which can mean people struggle in today’s flexible, knowledge-based economy), low levels of social cohesion, and low levels of voter turnout (indicating political disenchantment) are the ones that show more BNP support.”

    So the answer is to restore their faith in the political system. Focusing on the immigration aspect and that more immigration will get rid of the problem is probably in fact a false lead which is not really going to solve the underlying problem. So maybe they don’t vote BNP, instead they will plump for whichever other snake oil salesman comes along.

  27. douglas clark — on 21st April, 2010 at 7:59 am  

    earwicga,

    Cheers,

    I am glad you are aware that censorship and audit are different things.

    I would allow more criticism of posters than I think you would, however, some of our new found friends are just here to split up our friendship.

    I am very fond of folk that comment here. Just ’cause they write stuff I agree with.

    I will, in my ridiculously confrontational manner, stand up for Sunny, Jai and Sonia, on the basis that they are chums, not folk I am obliged to dislike.

    For I am, in fact, very fond of them.

    Sunny wrote, it might not have been the first post here, but it was very early, that he didn’t like folk that claimed to represent a ‘community’.

    I agreed with that, back then, and I want to extend it to idiotic nutters like the BNP.

    I have nothing in common with these people. I doubt more than 1% of us do.

    But they come on here, and elsewhere, claiming to be a dominant strand of white thought, when they most certainly aren’t.

    I have said, that if Sunny or Jai or Sonia were ever to stand for Parliament, then I’d vote for them, whatever the ticket they stood for. In fact, I’d deliver leaflets and stuff.

    For I have read what they have to say, and it is all good.

  28. Sarah AB — on 21st April, 2010 at 8:07 am  

    “I would allow more criticism of posters than I think you would, however, some of our new found friends are just here to split up our friendship.”

    Douglas – I think just the opposite – I thought it had quite a bonding effect! Suddenly there was a issue where I actually agreed fervently with you and earwicga.

    But I will try harder to curb my troll-feeding urge in future.

  29. douglas clark — on 21st April, 2010 at 8:19 am  

    Sarah AB,

    Perhaps.

    I have enjoyed your comments on here.

    It is sad, is it not, that we can only agree when we are attacked by nutters?

    I quite like you, and am lost in admiration for your literary career, but this has become a cess pit of folk that don’t like you, and certainly, don’t like me.

    I hope you stick around, else the BNP will appear to represent us white folk here.

    Which would be bad.

  30. earwicga — on 21st April, 2010 at 9:16 am  

    Sarah AB – ‘I thought it had quite a bonding effect!’ – Yep!

  31. damon — on 21st April, 2010 at 11:56 am  

    On an Irish site that I linked to with this PP thread, some of the reaction was pretty scathing of the findings of the report.

    Someone said that there wasn’t high levels of BNP support in areas of high BME and immigrant populations, as there were less of the people that the BNP would like to vote for them in the neighbourhood.

    I have often thought it would be interesting to talk to football fans from clubs which were situated in highly BME areas (like West Ham, Tottenham, Aston Villa and Birmingham City) what they thought of the way that immigration had changed the face of the area around the club’s ground.

    As many of the fans may be ex-residents of the area and many only come back every couple of weeks to see a football match.

    Would their views have any value in a discussion like this?
    Also it was said that people in areas adjacent to multi-cultural ones (like Barking and Dagenham) were voting BNP because they didn’t want the same for their neighbourhood.

    I hope the report is right. But just wonder if it takes into things like what sometimes gets called white flight, but these days all kinds of people move out into new areas for all sorts of reasons.
    I have heard that the population in the west of England has been increasing as large numbers of people are completely relocating out of cities.

  32. a joke — on 21st April, 2010 at 2:32 pm  

    Oh what a farce, Clark redefining censorship for “audit” and his swearing screaming abuse for “standing up” for people.

    He is desperate to be accepted by people who couldn’t give a toss about him on the internet; says it all really.

    What a sick twisted joke like the very man himself.
    A jumped up little fascist screaming at others and demanding censorship.

    On any honest site him and his hysterical “fuck off” and “fuck you” and the like abuse would be deemed as trolling and in real life would earn him a smack in the mouth from even the most patient nun if he had the balls to do it face to face instead of online.

    And then he bleats about someone choosing to treat him to the very abuse he dishes out to others; most likely he posted it himself in any case, he is certainly crazy enough.

    What a debased nasty, nasty little specimen.

  33. a joke — on 21st April, 2010 at 2:33 pm  

    Oh dear oh dear what a farce!

    That demented lying drunk Clark redefining censorship for “audit” and his swearing screaming abuse for “standing up” for people.

    He is desperate to be accepted by people who couldn’t give a toss about him on the internet; says it all really.

    What a sick twisted joke like the very man himself.
    A jumped up little fascist screaming at others and demanding censorship.

    On any honest site him and his hysterical “fuck off” and “fuck you” and the like abuse would be deemed as trolling and in real life would earn him a smack in the mouth from even the most patient nun if he had the balls to do it face to face instead of online.

    And then he bleats about someone choosing to treat him to the very abuse he dishes out to others; most likely he posted it himself in any case, he is certainly crazy enough.

    What a debased nasty, nasty little specimen.

  34. D sent — on 21st April, 2010 at 2:35 pm  

    Raff @ # 31

    I agree wholeheartedly and it degenerated the moment Clark appeared, first demanding to know what I thought of the report and then telling me to ‘fuck off’ when I did without even any pretence at debate, along with yet another laundry list of absurd and unsubstantiated claims (otherwise known as lies.)

    But away from that nastiness and distraction, the report and its sponsors are quite obviously extremely biased to start off with, given that is strongly tied to the Labour party (virtually all of its trustees are Labour, including even Kinnock) and this is an election build up period.

    Secondly the claims are ludicrous because in the high immigration areas it is quite obvious that the BNP do not fare well because as Ed West puts it:

    “…it’s a self-selecting population, in the sense that residents who object to immigration for whatever reason left ages ago, often to places that become BNP strongholds. No one votes BNP in Hackney or Tower Hamlets because any potential BNP voter has long since moved. Those who stayed are either happy to live in a multi-racial area, or too poor to do anything about it.”

    And Liddle:

    “…How do they define areas with “higher levels of recent immigration”? They simply took the new National Insurance stats for ONE YEAR, 2008/9. How ludicrous is that?..

    Even then, the IPPR admit an anomaly – in Barking, where the BNP has seen its greatest successes; yes, they admit, there’s been loads of immigration there. Bit of a large anomaly, isn’t it?”

    This is not a ‘report’ worthy of any actual merit; this is merely another concealed front for a mainstream political party attacking a rival that they fear is taking votes from them.

    Rather like the Tory front of NB.

    Earwicga @ # 29

    Actually mate, on any honest site you and Clark would be the trolls.

    You know, attacking an on-topic commenter with gratuitous abuse and spam.

    If the site owners, the people who pay the bills for this site, don’t want free debate then why don’t they just say so instead of playing these underhanded games?

    If there is a comments policy here, you and Clark would have been in breach for your behavior. Not me.

  35. James — on 26th April, 2010 at 6:18 pm  

    It is a fact that many immigrants to the UK are useless trouble makers who contribute nothing to society

    Like this guy:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3636123/Immigration-migrants-in-their-own-words.html

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.