The BNP launched their manifesto today, and it’s worth taking a look at what they offer the British voter. Alongside getting out of Afghanistan - “there is not a single grain of Afghan sand that is worth the blood of a British soldier” apparently (though the idea that we are there for the sand may be news to some) - and “ending the global warming conspiracy”, they also vow a “halt to the immigration invasion”.
As Nick Griffin has tried to detoxify his brand, talking less about race, he has ratcheted up discussions of immigration. He now argues that much of the BNP’s support reflects the fact that they are the only party to take into account communities’ ‘real’ (and according to them, very negative) experiences of immigration.
ippr published a paper this week which examined whether he is right. We used regression analysis to examine the roots of BNP support across 150 local authorities, looking at whether high levels of immigration do raise communities’ support for the BNP, or whether other variables – such as political disengagement – are more important.
The findings suggest that areas which have higher levels of recent immigration 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. This reflects the findings of previous research which suggests that, on the whole, the more interaction people have with migrant groups the less concerned about migration they are.
We aren’t claiming that the scale of immigration in recent years isn’t of concern to many people; or that immigration doesn’t have some negative effects; or that there is no link between voting far right and being anti-immigration. What we show is that where people have significant lived experiences of immigration, those experiences are not of the kind which drive them to vote for the British National Party.
So what is behind BNP support? The evidence points to political and socio-economic exclusion as key drivers (see our recent ippr report). 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 turn out (indicating political disenchantment) are the ones which show more BNP support. It is these issues mainstream politicians should focus on to improve the lives of marginalised people, and draw support away from the party, making its future manifestos even more irrelevant than today’s.
Laura Chappell
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your analysis of the attractions of the BNP to some voters missed a trick.
ReplyDeleteWhen the odious BNP leader Nick Griffin launched the BNP election manifesto on Friday, he highlighted the BNP support for new nuclear power stations being built in Britain.
The night before, Lib.Dem leader Nick Clegg was the only one of the three party leaders in the television debate to reject new nuclear. Both David Cameron and Gordon Brown strongly endorsed nuclear new build, and hence find themselves atomically aligned with the BNP on backing nuclear.
The BNP manifesto despairingly insists "The BNP rejects the notion that our nation’s nuclear power stations should be owned by foreign investors."
Unfortunately for the BNP, under a Brown or Cameron administration, not only would the nuclear stations they support be owned by foreign companies ( France's EDF Energy, for whom Gordon Brown's brother Stephen is head of communications, and Germany's E.On), but be built using foreign companies, of which the leading contenders are: Areva (France), Westinghouse (US-Japan).
Not only ownership and operation will be foreign, but 100% of the uranium for the nuclear fuel will have to be imported -from Russia, Kazakhstan, Australia, Namibia, Canada or the US- as the UK has no economically recoverable uranium reserves.
Brown criticised Clegg's opposition to nuclear, challenging him to "get real." The reality is the two biggest political parties are now aligned withe BNP on nuclear energy, with opposition coming from the Lib.Dems and Green Party in Britain, and the Scottish Nationalists north of the border, to this old fashioned electricity generating technology.
To coin a phrase, it was a perverse variant of 'we agree with Nick'.
Laura
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in your response to this analysis of your report: http://electionblog2010.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-study-on-bnp-support-why-ippr-got.html
Sarah Mulley wrote this on the Guardian page
ReplyDelete"when faced with one extreme view, it is not unreasonable to seek to balance it with another. So when anti-migration groups talk about closing borders, we reply with calls for the human rights of migrants to be upheld."
Since when was it an 'extreme view' to promote the human rights of migrants????