1 / 15

The Far-Right in London

Professor Helen Margetts, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford Reporting on research funded by JOSEPH ROWNTREE REFORM TRUST LSE LONDON 21 st April 2006. The Far-Right in London. Peter John Helen Margetts David Rowland Stuart Weir. Research Evidence.

effie
Download Presentation

The Far-Right in London

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Professor Helen Margetts, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford Reporting on research funded by JOSEPH ROWNTREE REFORM TRUST LSE LONDON 21st April 2006 The Far-Right in London Peter John Helen Margetts David Rowland Stuart Weir

  2. Research Evidence • 8 exit polls of 567 voters after 2004 European elections, 10th June 2004: Folkestone, Bristol, Birmingham, Walsall, Newport, Glasgow, Basildon and Luton, funded by JRCT. • 2 focus groups of voters in 2004 European elections 24th June 2004 in Northampton (postal voting area), funded by JRCT • 2004 State of the Nation poll of 2,373 citizens across Britain between 26th May 2004 and 4th June 2004, funded by JRRT. • 2004 London Elections Study, poll of 1474 voters straight after European & London elections 10th June 2004, funded by ESRC, co-funded by JRCT • 2 focus groups of younger (below 45) and older (above 45) citizens in Dagenham in March 2005, funded by JRRT • Analysis of 2004 election results, census data, performance indicators in 624 wards across London, funded by JRRT

  3. 2004 Election Results in LondonBoth far-right parties did well in London and European elections of 2004 with combined share of the vote more than doubling in 2004. 2000 2004 London Mayoral election (1st pref) BNP 0.9 3.0 UKIP 1.9 6.0 BNP+UKIP 2.8 9.0 London Mayoral election (2nd pref) BNP 2.6 3.7 UKIP 2.5 10.1 BNP+UKIP 5.1 13.8 London Assembly election BNP 2.7 4.7 UKIP 2.0 8.2 BNP+UKIP 4.7 12.9 1999 2004 European Election (in London) BNP 1.6 4.0 UKIP 5.4 12.2 BNP+UKIP 7.0 16.2 Source: London Election Results, 2004

  4. By 2005, far-right entering mainstream of London politics (in contrast to conventional view that far-right plays a role only on lunatic fringe of British politics) • UKIP won two seats in the London Assembly (with 8.2% of vote) • BNP narrowly missed gaining a seat in the London Assembly (with 4.7% of vote) • UKIP won one of the nine seats in the London region of the European elections Survey Evidence • 23 % of Londoners either have voted or would consider voting for the BNP in the future (London Elections Study, 2004). • 24 % of Londoners ‘might vote’ for the BNP in the future (JRRT State of the Nation poll, 2004) • 45% of respondents said that they ‘might vote’ for BNP and/or UKIP in the future while 24% said that they ‘liked’ BNP and/or UKIP (London Elections Study, 2004).

  5. BNP easily most unpopular party ‘Like’/’Dislike’ feelings toward political parties in England, 2004 % +ve %DK %-ve % net +ve Lab 45 18 36 +9 Lib Dem 33 38 29 +4 Green 22 41 38 -16 Con 28 29 43 -15 UKIP 19 33 47 -28 BNP 8 27 66 -58 Source: State of the Nation, 2004 N=1,474 (all respondents)

  6. More positive feelings for BNP in London than in England as a whole • ‘Might vote’ for the BNP ‘in the future’ (as opposed to ‘could never vote for’) 24% for London, 20% for England and 17% for Britain • ‘Like’ BNP (score of greater than 4 on a 1 to 7 thermometer scale from dislike a lot to like a lot) 15 % for London 8 % for England Source: State of the Nation Poll, 2004

  7. High importance ascribed to immigration – particularly by UKIP/BNP • In 2004 European election exit poll 25 % of respondents felt that immigration was ‘the most important issue facing Britain today’ - above unemployment (5%) and fight against terrorism (20%), exceeded only by public services (47%) • 77% of BNP and 53% of UKIP supporters chose immigration as most important issue - 24 % of Conservative/Lib Dem supporters, 10 % of Labour

  8. Evidence from focus groups‘Blair should be saying “Look at this…why?” ’ • Immigration the main issue ‘We’re up in arms about immigration’. ‘I didn’t choose to emigrate…I chose to stay in my country…they chose to emigrate….I had no choice as to who came to my country’. • The major parties have failed ‘They are the ones that let them in’. • Policy solutions Australia and Canada have ‘got it right….: ‘we can’t go there without 100 grand’….. ‘here we just have a free NHS’.

  9. Evidence from focus groups • Those identifying immigration as key issue do not see themselves as racist – more that BNP is an alternative, untested party about which they know little ‘worth a try’ voting for smaller parties. ‘just how close they can get to the British nerve as possible without being racist’ ‘I voted BNP……then I saw that documentary……then I felt I shouldn’t have done, I regretted it’

  10. Evidence from focus groups‘Blair should be saying “Look at this…why?” ’ • Immigration as a symbol for other policy discontents ‘the more immigrants we have…..we are spreading our money too thinly’ ‘Quite a lot of each borough’s council tax goes on asylum seekers’….. ‘They say they have only allocated 38 properties to asylum seekers….I know for a fact that most asylum seekers in my block have been offered a property…. ‘ ‘There are so many African children going to school….I don’t begrudge the education…but they are taking more and more room in our schools’.

  11. Link between UKIP and BNP I 1st and 2nd preferences for London Mayor, 2004 2nd preference BNP UKIP Con Lib D Lab 1st preference: BNP49.2 22.0 7.6 7.7 UKIP 21.9 35.7 14.0 10.1 Con 6.9 26.8 40.2 10.5 Lib Dem 2.1 8.3 26.0 33.9 Lab 1.6 4.8 11.9 45.5 Source: London Election Results, 2004

  12. Link between BNP and UKIP support II(correlation of 0.89 for Assembly elections)

  13. Socio-economic determinants of BNP support • C2s most likely to vote BNP (correlation 0.7) - wards with more AB and C1 voters lowest BNP vote – wards with more C2s, Ds and Es higher levels of BNP vote • BNP support drawn from older age groups - lower in wards with higher proportion of younger people (correlation -0.432) • Education levels in borough an indicator of BNP support (correlation of 0.624 for ‘no qualifications’) • BNP vote higher in wards with higher proportions of white people (but racial mix of borough poor indicator) • No link between BNP support and proportion of benefit claimants • No link between BNP support and number of asylum seekers accepted by council

  14. Conclusions • Significant and growing levels of support for far-right parties in London, with strong local variation • Strong positive relationship between support for BNP and UKIP and linkages between UKIP & BNP in voters’ minds – what happens post-UKIP? • Higher BNP support most likely in localities with higher proportions of residents: • in C2, D and E (especially C2) • with no qualifications • in older age groups • Immigration is key policy issue for significant subset of Londoners – an issue on which main parties are seen to have failed • Immigration has become a symbol for other issues eg. housing, education.

  15. Conclusions • All these factors suggest a strong showing for the far-right is possible in 2006 local elections • Policy misconceptions (particularly on the relationship between immigration and local issues) are fuelled by BNP activities and feed into electoral support for far-right • These misconceptions should be tackled at local level.

More Related