The public like some BNP policies, but not the BNP
YouGov have carried out an experiment for Sky News, asking two groups of people if they agreed with a list of BNP policies. The first group were not told they were the policies of the BNP, the second group were. Unsurprisingly, it found that public perceptions of the BNP drove down support for policies when they were identified as being from the BNP. On average 6% fewer people supported a policy when it was attributed to the BNP, and 6% more people opposed it.
The survey found strong support for BNP policies on accepting fewer asylum seekers (supported by 77%, or 74% when associated with the BNP) and giving priority to British families in allocating council housing (83% support, or 77% when associated with the BNP). There was overwhelming support for making criminals serve their full sentences (91% and 87% support). The question of whether all immigration should be halted provided the strongest contrast – 59% supported the policy, but when it was presented as a BNP policy support fell to 48%.
There was a more mixed view on Europe – 35% of people supported withdrawal from the European Union, with 36% opposed (the 1 point gap grew to a 10 point gap once the policy was associated with the BNP).
There was however strong opposition to more extreme policies on race – asked if they agreed that non-white people were inherently “less British”, only 16% of people agreed, with 68% opposed. When identified as a BNP support dropped to 11%, opposition grew to 76%. A majority also opposed the government encouraging immigrants to leave Britain (52% opposed, rising to 58% opposition when associated with the BNP).
Finally, YouGov asked people if they would seriously consider voting for a party that supported all these policies. In the unattributed group, 37% said yes, 48% said no. In the attributed group the figure is lower, 20% say they would seriously consider voting for the BNP (a figure comparable to the ICM survey in JRRT report that found 18% of people saying they might vote BNP), 66% said no.
What does this tell us? Firstly some of the BNP’s policies – particularly on crime and prioritising housing – are very popular indeed. Despite that a majority of people would not consider voting for a party that allied these policies with the BNP’s stance on race and repatriation. If you actually mention the BNP by name, with all the negative connetations that come with it, the proportion of people willing to support it falls even further.
Filed under: YouGov
i totally agree with angel24, asylum seekers crime has risen, they go to prison, we pay for it, they come out, and are housed etc, it is a total abuse of OUR country, and they are just laughing at us in the process.Unless we stop it now, it will just escalate as it already seems to be doing, simple solution, send them home, and send a message to other asylum seekers, our country, our rules, stay out!
It is intersting how people will refuse to side with someone they dislike even though they like what they are saying. Perhaps it is the method by which these policies would be put forward that troubles people?
I’ve even thought of voting for the BNP, not because I think they have a cat’s chance in hell of getting in (I wouldn’t vote for them if I thought that) but because, as we’ve seen with people who have voted for the Green Party in the past, influence can be brought to bear as those parties who do have power feel the need to borrow the clothes of the party that is, albeit in a small way, rising in popularity. And, yes, I want to see far fewer immigrants, and to see no more special concessions (sharia Premium Bonds? what next?) for religious sects (the colour of their skin doesn’t interest me one jot). People miss the point when they simply lambaste the BNP. That’s like blaming the messenger for the message. The message is coming from voters who vote for the BNP. While we’re in a democratic country, I don’t see anything wrong with that, even if I detest what a party stands for.
[...] But let’s try to be as objective as possible in deciding whether or not it seems right or wrong for members of any political party to be barred from employment in the police service (or indeed anywhere in the public sector). [...]
I think the results of this survey are interesting in showing that the majority of people belive in the policies of the BNP but as soon has they know this they suddenly change there views. It seems that because the BNP has a reputation of being racist people are to scared to support them even though they agree with there policies. I think the whole racism row in this country has got people to scared to air their views. What is racist about saying enough is enough britain can not take anymore asylam seekers. The country resouces are being drained by the ever growing population. How is it fair that british people have payed tax,national insurance and council tax for years to improve our country to allow us to have the benefits of free health care and council houses when people are coming here who use the resources but have never contrubuted. And even worse still they have priority over the british people when it comes to using them ie.council houses. Being a dental nurse i have seen the NHS decline rapidly over the last few years and i belive it will be non existent in the next few years. it does not take a expert to work out that the amount of people paying national insurance cannot cover the amount of people who use the free healthcare system. working in a dental practice any asylam seekers that are treated do not pay for treatment that have a form that given to them to intitle them to free treatment. I strongly belive charity begins at home and that britain should look after there own before helping others. There are enough people in britain already that need to be given council houses so why are they being given to asylem seekers first. where i live there is a family that is having to live apart because they are still waiting for a council house after being on the housing list for three years. then just a few doors away from them a family of asylam seekers have moved in who have been on the list for three months !. I only hope that people start to stand up to what the belive in before the decline of this country gets any worse and something is done before its too late. I think every country should play there there part in helping asylam seekers i think Britain has taken more then its fair share.
In Scotland the debate is on other aspects of asylum. The First Minister has said that “Scotland is not full up” and EU students will get free university education. The “Asylum seekers” issue in Scotland is “Dawn Raids”, forced removal of Scottish children who speak English with an accent that would cause difficulty in Inverness being deported.
According to the Observer’s Scottish correspondent, Scottish public opinion has for some time been firmly against removing these families and local people have tried to disrupt removals.
There is good evidence to believe that Jack McConnell thought he had reached an understanding with the immigration service and was shocked to discover that Dawn Raids continued.
He lost the election because on this and other matters, despite acknowledging that he should stand up to Westminster more often in future, the electorate voted for a First Minister whom they thought would articulate Scottish values more robustly on eg Trident, nuclear power and Dawn Raids, all matters which public opinion is distinctively different in Scotland.
The SP minister who will have ultimate responsibility for preventing child abuse by the UK government is Fiona Hyslop.
I have met Mrs Hyslop, and she frightens me.
If I were to pick a member of the Scottish Parliament to take on a UK ministry on what Scottish public opinion sees as a moral issue, she would be the first choice by wide margin.
I do not think she will need to do anything much. The nuclear power industry gave up without a fight. I don’t think we will hear about any more forced removals of “legacy” cases with children at Scottish Scools.
Yougov sometimes asks questions about the degree of satisfaction with immigration policy. You don’t need to be a racist to be dissatisfied. The presumption is often that the choice is between the government’s policy, and a harsher one, but there are other choices and nuances.
Scotland is different. Some say it should be a different country. Immigration and other reserved issues need to be handled with greater sensitivity than in the past. If they are not, the outcome is obvious.
Please correct the grammar and speling in my previous post.
I would like to know what area the poll was carried out,as it is clearly anti BNP as usual,ask the wright questions,such as, do you think repatriation is a good idear,
I’m afraid that in general the people of Britain are gradually being shamed into accepting immigration as an integral part of living in Britain.
Only 2 miles from where I live there are “no go” areas for white British people, areas where even the police advise non-Asian people to walk or drive for fear of attack. In these same areas the local council and council sponsored housing associations are building houses with up to 6 bedrooms due to the size of these families. Outside these same council houses are parked the Range Rovers, Bentley’s and Mercedes Benz the apparently unemployed occupants drive around in.
Am I resentful? You bet your life I am! Is it simply coincidental that areas such as Oldham with its high proportion of immigrant population where I live have some of the highest council tax bills in the country? When I first moved to this area I scoffed at the plethora of stories related to me by Oldhamers of the positive discrimination culture of the council, the police, the benefits agencies and even the inland revenue, now I can add to these stories many more of my own.
Where the likes of Napoleon, The Kaiser and Hitler failed to defeat this country our namby pamby immigration policies have succeeded. Speaking of Hitler, perhaps someone could explain to me, why, when the area I work in has an Asian population of around 50%, on Remembrance Day there is not a single Asian to be seen at the cenotaph.
i’m a Labour voter and agree with most of their policies but immigration, I fear, will drive me from the Labour party and divide this country. The politcians simply have no idea of the harsh facts of life of living in a community that is having its very heart ripped out.
[...] Originally Posted by SponPlague That’s a poll on immigration, Greg said "all their policies"… No,It was a poll on a wide range of policies. Sky news just highlighted the immigration aspects;here’s the full poll. UK Polling Report The public like some BNP policies, but not the BNP [...]
[...] Originally Posted by SponPlague Yes, but the article only specifically mentions immigration. It doesn’t list the other policies they were asked about… Which is exactly what I said. Here is the list again.It does mention policies other than those on immigration. Why don’t you read it? UK Polling Report The public like some BNP policies, but not the BNP [...]
[...] UK polling report in 2006 noted that some voters like the BNP’s policies, but not the BNP themselves. And the same [...]
Helen,
you clearly have not read the survey claiming:
“people belive in the policies of the BNP but as soon has they know this they suddenly change there views.”
Is an exaggeration. the swing is only 6% and while some policies are agreed with, the ones that really make the BNP different, people clearly reject.
The test would be to start a completely new party with a nice fluffy positive name, and a ban on former BNP members… but have identical policies, and poll people on it without concealing the name.
There’s simply no evidence that “people clearly reject” “the ones that really make the BNP different”, and unless you can specify which “ones” you mean, and where the evidence is that they are “clearly rejected”, then your assessment is unfounded. …in fact if we pulled up the actual list of questions and results of responses, it may actually turn out that your assessment is completely false.
We wait with baited breath… Zzzzzzz….
I don’t think this is a case of people actually changing their views. More likely, it’s people being skittish about openly agreeing with the policy when tagged with a BNP association (or social desirability bias in a nutshell). Put another way, actual agreement with the policy may not differ between the two groups, but people lie to avoid the connotations of supporting a BNP policy. Of course, tagging a policy as being from the BNP might also sway votes over time as well, but I really doubt that’s what we’re seeing here.
I’ve only met one person who indentified themselves as a BNP member – he worked for an organisation that had used the Economic League in the past so he probably felt he was on safe ground. For many people the BNP has memories of skinheads and violence – and how many people remember white English trade unionists picketing hospitals in 1979? The BNP have always had a soft spot for trades unions.
Well, speaking from the US, I remember reading that it took a lot of work by union bosses to keep George Wallace’s support among trade unions in the North down. There’s something about “hard right” populism (I say this only to contrast it with some of the varieties of socialism that seemingly should also be popular among those groups; I don’t want to refire the “BNP is [insert part of spectrum]” debate) that gets a lot of support among unions, and moreover blue collar workers in general. Non-protest voters aside, I do suspect that the BNP gets a lot of support from the C2DE crowd.
“asked if they agreed that non-white people were inherently “less British”, only 16% of people agreed, with 68% opposed.”
That is pretty clear.
is it?
you missed the bit where you demonstrated that this was a BNP policy.
Apart from the lack of a source (and therefore no context or methodology – you seem to be referring to another survey, and trying to imply it’s the same survey as this one and of equal merit), there are obvious inclarities:
- Who are they asking (e.g.: a general v specific type); who is the “they” in your last post?
- How are they asking (e.g.: over the phone v written/anonymous)
- Where are they asking (e.g.: Salford v Bethnal Green; shopping centre? tv phone poll? university?)
- What is “white”? it doesn’t really exist does it (Where’s the boundary condition?! Italians and Swedes are as clearly distinguishable as Somalis and Khoisians; Ainu and Padaung)… What is meant by “British” (citizenship? ethnicity? behaviourally?) base it on real things like ethnic groups, you’ll get a different answer…
- Why are they asking this question? What are the preceding questions and info? To what extent are questions leading a respondent down a particular narrative?
- When? is this a 10-year old poll? Did it occur after a particular event that could affect the result?
…there are plenty of people on this site who are not naive enough to fall for a logically fallacious “everybody knows…” type comment when it comes to discussing polls.
nice try; try again…