Who are the people who voted BNP last week?
Channel 4 have published a huge YouGov poll taken in the days before the European elections, intended largely to examine exactly what drove support for the BNP. The full tables are well worth a look here
Firstly, there is the question of whose vote the BNP takes. The demographics of people who voted BNP in the European elections show they are more likely to be C2DE social class, likely to read the Sun or Star and almost certainly not a broadsheet, they are likely to work in a manual occupation (they are also likely to be male and middle aged, though that has less of a partisan implication). They are also likely to come from a Labour supporting background – 47% of BNP voters say their parents voted Labour.
This fits with the pattern of where the BNP tend to do well – normally seats that were previously strongly Labour – and with other studies of where the BNP get their support.
If BNP supporters are traditional Labour, male working class voters therefore, the natural conclusion that it’s Labour they are taking support from. This falls down, however, on some other questions – asked if they’d rather have Cameron or Brown as PM, BNP voters opt for Cameron by 59% to 17%. Asked to place themselves on the political spectrum they put themselves right of centre, in roughly the same place as they do the Tories. 22% of them think the Tories care about people like themselves, only 6% say the same about Labour. In short, the people the BNP seem to appeal to are actually “working class Tories” – the sort of traditional working class voters who under other circumstances might shift over to the Conservatives.
Asked a series of satisfaction questions, as might be expected, BNP voters were the least content with their lot in life. They were most likely to be dissatisifed with their disposable income, most likely to feel unsafe in their local area, most likely to feel their family had few opportunities to prosper and – along with UKIP voters – were most pessimistic on the economy.
Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority of BNP supporters wanted all immigration stopped – 94% agreed with the statement. However, this doesn’t strongly differentiate them from the rest of the public, 61% of whom agreed with the statement. Only amongst Green party supporters were a plurality opposed to the statement. BNP supporters were also most likely to put immigration as the top issue facing the country. 87% picked it as a major issue, though again, amongst the public as a whole it was already the second most mentioned issue, chosen by 49% of people. (As an aside, it’s worth noting that UKIP supporters also named immigration as the most important issue. Only 39% of people who voted for UKIP put the issue of Europe as one of the top four facing the UK)
Looking at other statements on race or immigration however, BNP supporters tend to contrast far more strongly with supporters of other parties. The majority of every other party’s voters agreed with the statement that “Non-white British citizens who were born in this country are just as ‘British’ as white citizens born in this country”, only 35% of BNP voters did, with 44% disagreeing. Large majorities of every party’s supporters agreed that there was no difference in intelligence between black and white people…except for BNP supporters, where only 41% agreed. Almost half (49%) of BNP supporters thought employers should discriminate on grounds of race in favour of white people (compared to 11% in the general population), and 58% thought most crime was committed by immigrants (22% in the general population). 72% of BNP supporters wanted the government to encourage voluntary repatriation, compared to 27% of the country as a whole.
At the extremes of conspiracy theory, BNP voters are more likely to believe in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, or that the Holocaust didn’t happen, but not to a great extent – the overwhelming majority reject them. 3% of British people apparently believe it completely true that “there is a major international conspiracy led by Jews and Communists to
undermine traditional Christian values in Britain”, compared to 9% of BNP supporters. 9% of British people think the Holocaust is exaggerated, with 1% denying it entirely – the figures amongst BNP supporters are 18% and 2%.
A final interesting point was the question of where people got their political news from. The vast majority of people get their news, as one would expect, from the TV, followed by newspapers, the radio and news websites. There was no great contrast between supporters of one political party or another on any of these. Where there was a contrast was the proportion of people who got their news from “political parties websites” – only 3% of people ticked this, but 12% of BNP voters did, suggesting the BNP have managed to communicate directly with their potential voters across the web.
(A note about comments. This is the sort of comment thread that risks rapidly descending into arguments about which parties are left or right, which parties are racist or not and so on. Please be aware of the comments policy, I’ll be moderating carefully and closing it if it gets out of hand)
@John TT – I think you are slightly misrepresenting the Tory line, but there is a valid point there. Brown has manouvered the next election debate onto ground he is most comfortable, and Andrew Lansley yesterday found how tricky this can be for the Tories. It doesn’t stack up to logical analysis, as we all know cuts will come whoever wins, but right now ‘Tory cuts’ may resonate more with voters than ‘Labour tax rises’. Cameron has faced tricky strategic decisions, and I don’t think his approach has been thought through well enough. The somewhat knee jerk inheritance tax cut, slapped in at short notice as a headline grabber, now looks like something of an albatross for them – why reward a small % of wealthy people while talking of major spending cuts? Likewise the current stern words on spending may (repeat may) cause him problems next year. The early signs are that the recession is proving less severe in the UK than expected (see today’s Independent) and it might be the case that Darling, far from being in cloud cuckoo land, was in fact rather on the pessimistic side. I’m not at all sure about this yet, as it’s too early to tell, but if this is the case and the deficit does not climb to the worrying heights forecast the Tories could have been flushed out in some people’s minds as savage cutters again.
Historically its been easier for oppositions to win against an optimistic backdrop, but this has generally been in terms of less fear of left of centre tax rises. I think the same could be true next year, with the fear of old fashioned ‘Tory cuts’ swinging a few votes. I’ve said for a long time I thought the economic scenario would not be as bad as some predicted, and this might alter the election dynamics. I still doubt its enough for a full Labour recovery, but it could be much closer than polls currently suggest.
“we all know cuts will come whoever wins, but right now ‘Tory cuts’ may resonate more with voters than ‘Labour tax rises’”
That just about sums it up (apart from the fact that Cameron yesterday didn’t mention Labour tax rises, but insisted instead that Labour’s planned cuts will amount to the same as his.)
Even if the figures came out as roughly the same, Labour will say they will cut because they have to, whereas the Conservatives will cut because they want to.
On the IHT, the announcement served its purpose and was heralded as a big turning point. I disagree entirely with the policy, but I do recognise it had a big effect. I doubt the effect would be entirely reversed if the policy were shelved.
The phrase “we opposed the fiscal stimulus” might just come to haunt Cameron, as he only uttered it when it was being reported that the tax cuts were having no effect.
No-one knows where the economy will go next, but I can imagine the Conservatives thinking their best moment for a landslide might have just passed by.
James,
What exactly was “nuanced” about the French revolution ?
The harvest failed.
The poor had not enough to eat.
The solution was to massacre those who owned the land.
The old aristocracy were replaced by a new kleptocracy, who assumed similar titles and the same estates.
This did not boost production, but caused over 20 years of war and internal strife, with thousands fleeing their homes in terror.
Self sufficiency in food was regained because the population had been decimated.
(All a bit like Zimbabwe)
Order was eventually restored, but the country’s global position was actually much weakened and its historic enemy was now indisputably the stronger.
The original problem (harvest failure) led to another revolution in 1848.
Re the Labour movement in UK, are you saying that the founding fathers in the Fabian society were extremeists, or that their solutions were simplistic ?
@ Paul H-J – in addition to the things you describe, the French Revolution followed the Enlightenment and was accompanied and shaped by an enormous depth of philosophical and political thought that has continued to profoundly influence Western society ever since.
No. I’m saying the exact opposite and using it as an example to undermine your suggestion that difficult times always give rise to extreme and simplistic responses. In fact, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t and sometimes extreme and simplistic responses are accompanied by sophisticated and nuanced ones.
The equation “difficult times = kneejerk reactionary responses” simply isn’t correct.
Block quotes don’t seem to work here. The above should read:
You: “Re the Labour movement in UK, are you saying that the founding fathers in the Fabian society were extremeists, or that their solutions were simplistic ?”
Me: No. I’m saying the exact opposite and using it as an example to undermine your suggestion that difficult times always give rise to extreme and simplistic responses. In fact, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t and sometimes extreme and simplistic responses are accompanied by sophisticated and nuanced ones.
blah blah
It’s the ‘fat’ that needs cutting.
Thankfully apart from a few die hard lefties most people realise there is huge waste in the system.
If, and I know they will, the Tories explain that not one teacher, nurse, doctor or policeman will lose their job then Labours accusations will fall on deaf ears.
Various nations around the world opposed the use of fiscal stimulus (in fact hardly anyone spent quite the sums we have) and their economies will improve just as quickly as ours.
Why have we ended up so much greater in debt some will ask? The answer; poor management.
With the Labour machine currently a laughing stock anyway such arguments should be easy to make stick.
“their economies will improve just as quickly as ours.”
You should know that you can’t know that. Indeed the opposite is possible. It won’t be easy to claim that cutting spending in the last budget would have led to quicker recovery.
James,
It can be argued that the French revolution actually derailed the enlightenment that had flourished under Louis XV. The revolution did not occur because of enlightened philosophy, and in its implementation was anything but enlightened.
In comparison, England, which had not suffered from starvation, embarked on a long period of both agricultural and idustrial development, during which expanding output led to increased wealth which in turn enabled the philanthropic movement to deliver improved conditions for all levels of society.
That does not mean that conditions in England were uniformly better (or egalitarian) than in France, but it remains the case today that Britain is the only major country which has managed the evolution from rural agrarian economy to fully developed industrial economy without violent revolution or war (civil or external) .
FWIW – I was not arguing that difficult times always lead to extremist movements taking power, or even that such movements are inevitable in such times. Merely that difficult times create an atmosphere in which extremism can flourish if rational leadership is not provided by the establishment to address the needs of the hour.
It is not the existence of economic conditions enabling extremism to emerge which allows it to succeed, but the failure of the establishment to deal with those conditions.
@Ivan – “If, and I know they will, the Tories explain that not one teacher, nurse, doctor or policeman will lose their job then Labours accusations will fall on deaf ears.”
I’m not sure you’re right. It’s perception, not reality that matters, and Cameron has to swim against a tide of public perception in some quarters that Tories want to cut as a philisophical position.
“Various nations around the world opposed the use of fiscal stimulus (in fact hardly anyone spent quite the sums we have) and their economies will improve just as quickly as ours.” – Very few majr nations opposed the stimulus – Germany did, saw the damage, and then backtracked, but not before a forecast 6.4% GDP contraction, much bigger than the UK forecast, and Merkel is now in some trouble for the September GE. Your point about these other nations recovering as fast as the UK is also not borne out by the facts as they stand today – it is possible that the UK is already out of recesssion, which if true would be utterly remarkable. Among major western economies I think only Australia, that has technically avoided recession so far, would be better placed than the UK if this was the case, although France has also fared reasonably well to date.
UK debt is greater than some (not by any means all) not due to the stimulus, but earlier spending – this is where your poor management arguement has more merit.
The “debate” between Hammond & Byrne this morning on Today was eye-opening.
Byrne refused to acknowledge :-
a) That Brown’s PMQs list of “Cash “Public Spending increases, represented a reduction when inflation & other factors exposed by IFS are taken into account.
b) That Brown’s carefull use of the adjective “Current” , was neccessary because Labour’s cuts will be in “Capital” spending ( cf NHS & Colleges)
He got short shrift from Humphries, & the Press today have slated Brown/Byrne for trying to conceal the facts about their own plans.They won’t get away with this nonsense.
But Cameron may yet come to regret allowing Lansley ( job guaranteed) to ring fence NHS spending increases. Other departmental heads in a Conservative Government may have words to say & he cannot know how how the profile of the upturn & tax revenues will turnout.
As evidence of some re-stocking appears, Darlings forecast of “up-turn” by end 09 may just possibly come to pass.
Of course this will allow Brown considerable potential credit-but it will then focus attention well & truly on Policy for the Public Finances in the Recovery.
This should play to Cameron if he sticks to honesty,& realism-neither of which will feature in Brown’s ridiculous mangling of the truth & desperation to say Cons will cut & he won’t.
I predict that due to what has happened over the passed few weeks we will see in the coming few weeks an average polling of Cons 41, Lab 20, Lib Dems 20.
@ Paul H-J – a great many things can be argued. Certainly the long-term significance of the Enlightenment was not dependent on the French Revolution but that does not mean that Enlightenment ideals didn’t shape aspects of the French Revolution or its aftermath.
“In comparison, England, which had not suffered from starvation, embarked on a long period of both agricultural and idustrial development, during which expanding output led to increased wealth which in turn enabled the philanthropic movement to deliver improved conditions for all levels of society.”
Yes, I know. I don’t see how that negates my point. Life for most people in Britain in the 18th and 19th Centuries was very difficult indeed but this did not give rise to any dominant extreme and simplistic reaction.
“It is not the existence of economic conditions enabling extremism to emerge which allows it to succeed, but the failure of the establishment to deal with those conditions.”
In part, but if you look at the prehistory of, say, Nazi Germany what you find is a perfect storm of factors coming together at once, some of which have fairly long histories. This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means but if you consider the preconditions for Nazi success in Germany, they include:
- the popularity from at least the 19th Century onwards of various forms of mystical nationalism, from the Wandervogel movement to pan-Germanism
- a virulent strain of anti-Semistism (common to much of Europe at the time)
- the humiliation of defeat in WWI, exacerbated by the humiliating conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles
- economic collapse
- the perceived Communist threat, which the centre parties focused on so much that they overlooked the Nazi threat until it was too late
- the cleverness of the Nazis. It’s fashionable to dismiss them as buffoons these days, but they were adept at finding and exploiting weaknesses, at using the media (particularly radio and cinema), at PR in general (the symbology, the uniforms, the well choreographed rallies)
Essentially, the success of extremist movements is not attributable to any single factor – not even one as significant as economic collapse – but rather to the coming together of a range of circumstances, trends, events, and even personalities, within a particular cultural context.
James,
From my post:
“It is not the existence of economic conditions enabling extremism to emerge which allows it to succeed, but the failure of the establishment to deal with those conditions”
From your post on the rise of Nazis:
” the perceived Communist threat, which the centre parties focused on so much that they overlooked the Nazi threat until it was too late”
QED ?
@Colin – I think you are right. Both parties have a careful line to tread if they are to keep credibility. Brown clearly has a problem here, but Cameron also. The Labour line that they can cut capital spending ‘as you only build hospitals once’ is true, but the figures still present problems. Hiding behind ‘efficiency savings’ is a regular trick of many parties.
The key however, is perception. If Brown/Darling recover some credibility from a surprise strengthening of the economy voters are more likely to be swayed by the Labour claims
You know some of these questions on racial issues are subjective and the ones on Jews and Communists is a classic research mistake – I may think communists are undermining the West, but if I put yes, that does not mean I think Jews are.
Your report on the intelligence of black and white people surprised me, until I read the question. It is asking about views on the average intelligence of black people and white people in Britian – not race in general. That is a very different quesion.
Someone may feel that intelligence is not a factor of race, but may feel that Britain has imported many uneducated coloured people to the country. So on average they would truthfully answer that white people in Britain are on average more intelligent – but that does not mean they think that is the case because of genetics.
I actually think that as many people will read your report and not look at the question you ought to change the wording to reflect the real question – otherwise this is a misleading report.
I also think people should try and be more objective in the ” are people born here just as British question”. To take out the effects of propoganda, it needs questions that ask if British people born in Spain are Spanish, or if Joannah Lumley (born in India) is Indian or British !!
Added to that, it is question on it’s own that is difficult to answer truthfully. Are people born here that live in the Muslim parts of Bradford, speaking English as a second language and dressing as they would in Pakistan, just as British as someone whose family has been here for centuries and has a strong senes of British culture and wants to improve British society. My answer would be no.
However, if you asked about friends I have who were born in Uganda, but have settled here and integrated into British culture with their families, contributing to society as a whole – then I would say yes.
So the question is playing to bigotry and not understanding real attitudes, or even why people vote as they do. That is why we need an open debate on the whole issue.
Alec:-
Robert Chote was just on TV explaining it all.
Brown quoted figures at PMQs to demonstrate “increases”. These figures include , Inflation, Debt interest ( increasing) , and Recession driven Welfare payments. What is left therefore-normal Departmental Spending -will fall.
Apparently Andy Burnham has just said the Labour will continue to increase spending in real terms on NHS too !!!!………….so both parties have the same plans.
Only the Prime Minister tries to conceal these truths from the voters. He will come a cropper if he persists.
Your last sentence is , in my view, now likely to be the key to the GE outcome.
I hope Pollsters now start asking questions which tease out preferences for a post GE Government, in the event of some degree of pre GE recovery .
I guess the problem will be -what do the public accept as “recovery”-and remember that unemployment is a lagging indicator.
@ Paul H-J – my point is that your own analysis is “simplistic”
There is no SINGLE factor that leads to the success of extremist movements. Rather, there are perfect storms of many factors. The failures of established powers are only one of those and, arguably, where extremism is on the rise such powers are already weak.
And, finally. The question on voting Labour or Conservatie is actually asking people whether they would rather vote at this time for David Cameron’s Conservatives or Gordon Brown’s Labour. It is not asking if they have voted Labour or Conservative in the past.
Given that many BNP people feel that Labour have not treated them well, I would have thought that even if they have voted Labour in the past, they are much less likely to vote Labour now. So letting peopel run away with the conclusion they are really ‘working class Tories’ is not worthy of a good analyst. If you look at the Labour vote, they look to be Labour’s very, very core vote – the ones often charcteristed by the fact they would vote for a monkey with a red rosette. Not the ones who voted so overwhelmingly for Tony Blair in 1997.
And the same could be said for the left wing/right wing question. The media have constantly screamed right-wing extremeists at the BNP, so is it any wonder that is where they are viewed by supporters?
This is a questionnaire that has reinforced sterotypes for a news channel. It is not a piece of research I would set much store by for understanding BNP voters. However, there is one question of hope. And that is who a Government should be helping – apart from the Greens, there is very little differences between groups. Which shows that at heart most people, even the BNP, have the greater good in mind. It is just how we get there that is the arguement.
Alec-two other thoughts:-
One can detect a public mood in favour of the Public Sector payroll being curtailed. The rates of pay, the “job for life” culture, the privileged pension rights,…the lack of “accountability” all feed into this at a time when the Private Sector Payroll is losing jobs & pension rights.
If Brown persists in giving the impression that Public Sector Payroll is sacrosanct under Labour , this may have the reverse effect on voter attitudes of the one he is so clearly thinks will pertain.
More Polling questions on attitudes to Public Sector Jobs & Benefits after the “up-turn” please!
@Colin – again, I think we agree. Brown has relied one smoke and mirrors far too often – people expect this and tire of it. He needs to recognise this and be fundamentally more honest. There are opportunities for Labour though – I think all parties see the major anomaly of public sector pensions and would like to crack these, even the Tories have hinted about Trident not being replaced, and things like switching the money spent on 40% tax relief on pensions contributions into a substantial rise in basic state pensions create an opportunity for Brown to cut taxes in less painful ways while appearing radical. I doubt this will happen, as Brown is a calculator, not a radical.
I wonder what the impact of a faster-than-expected return to economic growth would be? On the one hand, Darling would be vindicated and his position strengthened. However, the definition of a recession is a technical one and for many people, their companies will have been in difficulties for a year or more even thought the recession only got labelled as such in the last quarter of 2008. House prices have also been falling for longer. So when the indicators turn upward, but people’s circumstances have not changed, will they recognise the end of the recession and – more importantly – give Labout the credit?
I also wonder if – even if the economy is seen to grow again this summer – whether this will automatically benefit Labour? It is conceivable that the reaction might be “If things weren’t so bad after all, why on earth did you panic last year and run up such huge debts?”. If other countries emerge from the recession over the next year, but with much less structural debt, our government may not look so clever.
I expect that Labour will gain some credit from an early end to the recession, but not to a very great extent for the reasons above. Maybe 2-3 percentage points. Whether this is decisive in terms of the next GE will depend on how the Tories play their hand and the timing of the election. A post-recession bounce would provide a great temptation for an early GE.
“I wonder what the impact of a faster-than-expected return to economic growth would be?”
The impact on room for spending would be the same for all parties-leaving choices & preferences as the dividing lines-though Brown seems intent on avoiding this truth .
But the interesting thing about your thought Leslie , is-what assumptions will the parties make about the future economy -it is unseeable forward conditions which will affect the voters, and not those on the day of the GE. (unless a quite miraculous recovery occurs by next May)
Track record says Brown will be as bullish as possible, and common sense says Cameron will be cautious.
Who will the punters believe.
Leslie,
Technical point. It is too late for an “early” GE as this Parliament has already passed its fourth anniversary. Perhaps by early you mean a GE any time before May next year ?
Even so, don’t hold your breath. Any “recovery” is not going to become evident until the tail end of the year even it has already started, and you still need to overcome Brown’s innate caution (indecisiveness / cowardice – take your pick).
As to whether the economy will recover in 2009:- The NIESR figures quoted in today’s FT suggest that some parts of the economy may indeed be levelling off, or even resuming growth, but this is neither uniform nor the whole economy. Even the NIESR has not predicted a positive outcome for Q2 of 2009. Moreover, I would counsel caution, even if we have indeed passed a low point. The graph which accompanied the FT article showed that there had been an equivalent up-tick at this stage in both the previous two recessions, and there remains a real risk of a double dip as occurred in 1979-83 and 1929-34. Moreover, the path to date is far closer to the trajectories in the latter two than in the far shallower recesion of early 1990s.
Finally, as noted by Alec and Colin, the political impact of any economic recovery will be driven by perceptions ratehr than dry statistics, and even then, may not benefit the government.
9% of British people think the Holocaust is exaggerated
———
what a shocking and depressing statistic.
my grandfather (who was RAF on attachment to the RE) saw one of the camps and, believe me, he never forgot what he saw.
there is no exaggeration.
@ David – I wouldn’t worry about that 9% stat too much. There will always be a section of society that is hardline anti-Semitic – neo-Nazis, some Muslims. We’ll never be completely free of these loons but, so long as their numbers remain in single digits, we can live with them.
@Paul H-J
Interesting – I didn’t know that a GE is only counted as early if it takes place within the first four years. As you say, I was referring to an election earlier than next June – indeed this autumn. However we all know Gordon’s track record on going for autumn elections!
@James
*I* worry about the 9% figure. That’s more than 5 million people. Even allowing that not all of them are classic antisemites, it is worrying that the myth of Holocaust exaggeration pushed by “revisionist” historians and eagerly latched onto by those who seek a stick by which to beat Israel has found such a receptive hearing. Clearly, our education system , which can hardly be said to ignore the Holocaust, is not up to resisting the prejudices of old-Right, new-Left and the more fascist elements of Islamism.
The reason white males from traditional Labour backgrounds vote bnp is simple in my view. It seems that the perception is that Labour policy is driven by a lot of ‘white male’ bashing – too much concern for womens rights, ‘positive’ discrimination in favour of women and ethnic minorities in the workplace and lack of any meaningful action in child access/custody – In a generally more equitable world this hasn’t moved on at all with custody always assumed to be automatically with the mother. Round canteen tables in the workplace, these are the sort of issues that the bnp thrive on, and offer solutions to white males who feel treated unjustly on these matters. There is a genuine believe that all other groups are treated better than them, and that today’s males are paying for the ’sins of the past’. I do not need feel the average bnp voter is overtly racist, but believes that the bnp ‘goes in to bat’ for them.
Leslie,
“early” is a relative rather than an absolute term.
In general, we have had elections at approx four year intervals for most of the post-war period, the main exceptions being those which were either shorter due to a lack of working majority (1951, 1966, Oct 1974), or longer as the incumbent hung on to the bitter end (1979, 1992 and 1997) – note 1979 was actually 4 yrs and 7 months, but timing was not determined by the PM who had lost a motion of no confidence.
Had Brown gone to the country in October 2007, just 2 1/2 years into the Parliament, that would have counted as an “early” election. An election in May / June this year would have been par for the course.
Of course, now that everyone expects Brown to go to the wire (technically 10 June 2010), anything before May would be seen as “early” – but only relative to expectations.
@ Leslie – well, when you put it like that … though I still think no matter what we do, we’ll always have a loon contingent which believes in any amount of conspiracist nonsense, including Holocaust denial.
More scary, IMO, are the people who know the Holocaust happened but think it was a good thing. There are a worrying number of those types on the fringes of both the left and the right.
I have no empirical proof of this but I suspect that these days the majority of “Jewish conspiracy/Holocaust denier” extremists are Muslims rather than old fashioned white racists. I don’t see much sign of anti-Semitism amongst ordinary white people. Can you really imagine the British public hating Jerry Springer, Zac Efron, Esther Rantzen etc?
First of all, may I say that this has been a very interesting read through the article itself, and many of the responses posted.
What I would like to focus on though is the concept of Britain no longer suffering widespread racism.
I am interested in how one might calculate that. Certainly, I dont think non-white contestants winning talent competitions or reallity-tv shows means a great deal. Those people win because they have talent, and because they have a significant minority of people from similar backgrounds voting for them. It would be unusual for the white population of britain to unite and vote for the one remaining white contestant just because they were the one remaining white contestant I feel, whereas people from other social groups and ethnic minorities would arguably be more likely to do so. Nevertheless, I do not think this can give us much of an idea of whether or not Britain is racist.
Certainly, when I often talk to friends from back home in the Midlands, and others from further afield in the north of England, I do get the impression that there is an overwhelming sense of inherrant racism in these areas. And not just in more rural areas either. Indeed I would say that there are very few white people in certain areas of the midlands and the north who could not be easily engaged in racist-type conversations or anti-immigrant conversations.
The difference I think is that most of these people would still never vote for the BNP, solely because of the stigma attached to it. They would also steer well clear of such conversations in company which they do not know well enough to trust with their views. With people they know, they will say things like, “I’m not racist…but…”, when clearly the words that follow are inherrantly racist.
My parents, I am sad to say, are exactly like this, as are most of my family members. They are a good Christian family, who would never consider themselves to be racist, and would go to great lengths to ensure that they would not be badged as such, but these kind of conversations give the game away.
Another friend of mine is planning to emigrate to Spain, in his own words “to escape all the immigrants who steal our jobs”. Yet he would also state that he was not racist, and would not vote for the BNP.
My point then is that the issues of racism and support for the BNP, whilst of course linked, are not mutally exclusive, and that there is a widespread racism in large parts of the UK, both in rural areas and in cosmopilitan areas. No poll will show this, as a majority of these people, like my parents, will declare that they are not racist, and would not indicate racist views in a poll as a result. They certainly would not say it in a face-to-face poll. The same goes for homophobia, perhaps even more so, amongst many of these people.
The overwhelming majority of these people do not vote BNP, and would not do so, unless the BNP was to become “more acceptable”. Instead they will vote for one of the big two, if they vote at all, but it is this group of voters that would make a great deal of difference should the views of the BNP become more acceptable in the media, at which point we should expect them to swing.
For my own part, I am happy to say that I live and work in a cosmopilitan inner-city area, working with children often from black caribbean, black african or other ethnic backgrounds, and despite being brought up in a family where there is obvious yet publically hidden racism, am vehemently opposed to such views. I dislike the stance of the BNP immensely, and I worry that it’s numbers will continue to grow as more of these kind of people decide that it has become more acceptable to vote for this party and thus clamber out of the closet.
Mickey,
Scroll up and see the bit I posted on the 1997 Election – few people willl vote differently because the candidate is ‘Black’ or Gay.
Plus another stat ,the UK has more mixed race marriages than any other country.
Also, there is prejudice right through society but racism is, in my view, not widespread.
Hitler was a Christian by the way and the Dutch Reform Church (SA branch) found some way to back apartheid.
My experience is that secular people have less prejudice than so called ‘good christian families’.
Securalist have never killed anyone in the name of God!
It’s the utter naivety of Jim Jam who seems to live in some kind of multiracial paradise that needs to be addressed if we’re to stop the BNP.
As Mickey (and I’m sure anyone who has any kind of day to day contact with working class England) knows the vast majority of such people are undeniably proud of white England and amongst their own will have views in respect of non-white Britain far from those of the middle class media and broadly in line of what the BNP are saying. But as Mickey said whilst the BNP has connotations of fascism and is beset by the kind of characters with their extremely chequered pasts that are currently found in its ranks they would never vote for it. In fact amongst the working class people I meet every day in my community job across West Yorkshire you’d find it hard to find many people who do conform in any way to those surveyed who give the enlightened answers about race connoted in that survey at the top of this thread. As MIckey says what people give as answers to pollsters and what they really think amongst their own on such issues are two completely different things. And this isnt just confined to Yorkshire etc as part of my family come from that most ignored sector of society the usually hidden working class sector of the South East and the views of similar people I meet when visiting are exactly the same.
And i’m flabbergasted that black people winning pop idol has been mentioned hasnt JImJam heard of minstrelsy which I believe some of the KKK were quite keen on.
As Mickey says we’re not saying that the white working-class are “fascists” and a large proportion would never admit to racism just that their views are broadly supportive of what they see as the “indigenous white majority” and theyd rather live amongst those they perceive as ethnically similar.
That’s why its vital that the other parties step out from their middle class cocoon and realise just how downtrodden and ignored the whire working and lower middle class think they are. And while theyre at it distance themselves from the UAF who are surely the biggest recruiting device that the BNP could wish for.
ie could you imagine anything more likely to turn off white working-class voters than what theyd perceive as some scrawny middle class students trying to tell them how to vote if anything its more likely to make them think “if these people are against them maybe the BNP have a point…”
PS although I don’t know why Jim Jam went off on a tangent at the end of his post about secularism – but I think the gist of it was pretty ill thought out eg “no-one has been killed by secularism in the name of God” probably true but a few millions have been killed by secularism in the name of Stalin, Hitler (who in his writings/speeches defined himself as an atheist with occasional “pretend” leanings to a pre-Christian paganism). Mao. Lenin etc etc.
Fido – you may not get this as the thread is old but my remarks about religion were in response to the notion that a good christian family could be racist from Mickey.
I feel you are confusing prejudice with racism and would ask you to address why having ‘Black’ candidiates in seats with mainly white Electorates (e.g. Ashok Kumar in Lanbaurgh/South Middlesbrough) only cost labour around 1% off the average swing in 1997.
Of course the issues of poor people of whatever race need to be addressed.
Of course I want to see and end to prejudice as well but this will take centuries and I will settle for now for conscious racism to be in decline and marginal.
I agree withy you aboiut the UAF but please don’t assume that I am middle class – I make no assumptions about other posters.
We will just have to disagree about votes by mainly young people in TV shows
Whatever has been said (and I haven’t bothered to read it since my last post), I can’t see how you will ever get useful or reliable information on the BNP.
They are an issue that the establishment simply don’t understand, and as long as any association with them is treated with the irrational cult-like vitriol and pariah/taboo status that it is: I don’t see how you will ever get honest answers about who votes for them and why; as long as you never get honest questions about them.
Jim Jam – yes yes youre right i shouldnt have assumed that i’ll blame it on trying to get post finished before shift started!
[...] argument that is being put is that BNP are gaining support from at the expense of the Tories, not Labour. Evidence cited [...]