So what IS behind BNP support?

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