Study: immigration does not increase BNP support


9:00 am - April 20th 2010

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

The British National Party (BNP) and national politicians frequent suggest that the BNP attracts support because it is the only party to take into account communities’ ‘real’ experiences of immigration.

The think-tank ippr has explored whether or not this is the case by looking at the roots of BNP support across 149 local authorities.

It conducted regression-based analysis to see whether or not high levels of immigration do raise communities’ support for the BNP, or if other variables – such as political disengagement – are important.

Their findings suggest that areas that have higher levels of recent immigration than others 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.

It seems that direct contact with migrants dissuades people from supporting the BNP.

For example, of the 10 local authorities in which the BNP gained most support in the 2009 European elections, nine had lower than average immigration (with Barking and Dagenham the only anomaly).

Rather, the evidence points to political and socio-economic exclusion as drivers of BNP support. 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 turnout (indicating political disenchantment) are the ones that show more BNP support.

ippr urge mainstream politicians to strongly resist the notion that people have been driven into the arms of the BNP by the harm immigration is causing to their communities.

Instead, they must focus on building strong communities and strong education systems, and on rebuilding trust and confidence in democratic politics, so that marginalised people do not feeling so disconnected.

This should enable them to both better serve the interests of these communities, and undercut support for the BNP.

———–
From the summary of the ippr study. Download the whole document from here.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Familiarity breed tolerance, even acceptance, I’m glad this report is out to dispell some of the myths around immigration.

Sadly, I have a feeling this won’t get picked up by certain sections of the media because it doesn’t really fit in with their narrative.

The alarming thing is that we’ve all known this since circa 1120 with the beginnig of the Norwich Blood Libel. If not before.

When people deal with people every day, frictions between “communities” diminish. When two visually identifiable groups live next to one another, but separately: “ghettoization” they called it in the 80s, then you typically get one of them deciding the other is takin’ our jobs, and if you allow the shit-stirrers and bigots to get to work in such places then you will soon see fire-bombs and murdered children. And hey, look…

It’s alarming because the Broken Britain narrative has now gone unopposed, propagated by government and opposition in the face of evidence, for so long that IPPR needed to do new research to convince our lords and masters of knowledge we’ve had for better than 900 years.

Might it not be fairer to say that immigration does not increase BNP support in the areas that see that immigration? After all, the people that do support the BNP overwhelmingly cite immigration as their main reason for doing so.

As a statistician (of sorts) I’ve got to wonder if they are controlling for the proportion of the community who are immigrants themselves that live in areas with high rates of immigration?

If a hypothetical area is 25% immigrant (0% BNP voting one presumes) and 75% non-immigrant (10% BNP voting) and the national average is 7.5% BNP voting then while the area appears average in terms of BNP voting it clearly isn’t, as the differential effect of the high levels of immigration is being masked by the high immigrant population.

I haven’t read the report, but it was my first question.

“Their findings suggest that areas that have higher levels of recent immigration than others are not more likely to vote for the BNP. ”

Err, yes. We know this. As Adam says in a couple of posts up:

“We might think it’s because they see people moving in near them, and so have direct experience of it. But from my time canvassing, anecdotal evidence from friends, and the only studies I’ve seen, worry about immigration is much more prevelent in areas which haven’t experienced much of it (in all four days canvassing, I only met 2 people who were BME).”

However, when accurately constructed studies are done what we actually find is that BNP (and other racist stuff) votes go up in the places “right next door to lots of immigration”.

Now, what we want to make of that is another thing but we’ve known this for years.

Tim: agreed. Ghettoization, putting communities which are visibly distinct *next* to each other but not integrating them, is indeed a centuries-old way of ensuring that the plebians kill off your inconvenient foreigner problem for you.

However, your implication here is that therefore it is ‘immigration’ that causes racist bigotry, by some form of amorphous example process? The whole point of the thing we ‘know’ is that it’s not immigration that causes bigotry, it’s bigotry that causes people to think immigrants are “taking their jobs”.

You seem to have a cart-horse sequencing problem in your implication that, just because Hannan or the BNP say ‘immigration is the problem’ they’re telling the truth.

Didn’t the Gaurdian on the Datablog show that BNP membership and voting patterns were in areas with hardly any immigrants?

Here it is!

The findings do not surprise me. The BNP supporting areas here in Stoke are nearly 100% white and have no direct experience of immigration.

So if the argument is that those next door say to themselves – “look what’s happened there, we don’t want that here” – what is the policy prescription you propose?

I like how when everyone ignored your first bit of trolling, you’ve had to come back with the ridiculous analogy that is your comment at 10.

It doesn’t hold any water does it you cretin?

Pull yourself together man.

I like how you always, but always, resort to personal insults against anyone with whom you disagree.

You must be a very angry person.

Chillax.

Cjcjc: I’m not sure that *is* the argument.

The argument as I’m familiar with it is this:

Humans fear the unfamiliar.

Visibly different people, living in a separated community which does not intermingle with the wider community are very noticeably unfamiliar.

People who are already bigots, that is, traditional, used-to-run-the-country, Enoch Powell style racists, know that fear is a radicalisation tool.

So they tell people “look over there, look at those towelheads stealing our jobs”; and in areas which are very very poor but white, and are close to immigrant communities[1], they find that people buy it. Because those people are disadvantaged and afraid, and a nice man with a leather jacket just showed them a target. Now, they can stop being scared and get angry. Auto-godwination would be so easy right now.

The point about this analysis is that abandoning areas of your country and population is bad, and so is segregation, and fixing both things will at some point be necessary. And as Tim said, we did already know that.

[1] High correlation there, particularly in urban areas…

@12:

I like how you always, but always, resort to personal insults against anyone with whom you disagree.

You must be a very angry person.

Are we suffering from some sort of international irony crisis or something?

The point about this analysis is that abandoning areas of your country and population is bad, and so is segregation, and fixing both things will at some point be necessary.

I’m sure that’s right.
So, is that more easily achieved with more or less immigration from here?

So if the argument is that those next door say to themselves – “look what’s happened there, we don’t want that here” – what is the policy prescription you propose?

Silly argument. If the people with direct experience of immigration aren’t complaining, then what reason do people who don’t have experience of it have?

Also – you’re desperate when you start quoting Ed West to support your arguments.
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7291

“Silly argument. If the people with direct experience of immigration aren’t complaining, then what reason do people who don’t have experience of it have?”

Maybe they are being silly. But that’s not the point. That is, as above, the way that people are actually acting, whether it’s silly or not.

So, other than just telling people not to be silly, what do we or can be done about it?

I just liked his headline!

But that is what people are essentially “saying”, isn’t it?

Cjcjc: how much immigration occurs is entirely irrelevant to the question being asked… The only thing which causes the public to object to immigration, which is a necessary aspect of the free market economy, is fear-mongering. People who actually deal with immigrants do not fear them.

The way to fix the problem is to desegregate and out-face the fear-mongers.

“So, other than just telling people not to be silly, what do we or can be done about it?”

Well the study also found that BNP supporting areas were also characterised by; (1) lack of education, and (2) lack of social cohesion and community spirit. So logically we raise the standard of education, and build social capital.

So logically we raise the standard of education, and build social capital.

No doubt.
Would this be done more easily with more or less immigration?

cjcjcjcjc:

Not angry at all, it is just that I have a low tolerance threshold for cretins, as others have pointed out, your comment at 10 is not what the argument is at all, never mind the fact that on your equation, areas with high levels of non-whites are undesirable, which is verging on the daft racist territory.

Your first comment linked to an article that buys into the very nonsense the post itself was talking about but others here have made that point too.

Poor sod.

@21

Evidence suggests that social capital has much more to do with socio-economic factors than cultural or ethnic diversity, so if we increase material resources in deprived areas we will encourage more social capital whatever happens with immigration.

24. Golden Gordon

“You must be a very angry person”.
CjCjc, it is you who sounds like the Littlejohn clone. Angry at the world.
BNP are the brownshirts of the anti immigration right. Thick statist dougnuts.
The true bigots are the Migration watch, Nick Cohen, HP, Edmund Standing types. They attack the BNP to hide their own anti migrant views, which in essence do not differ from the BNP’s views on immigration

So logically we raise the standard of education, and build social capital.

No doubt.
Would this be done more easily with more or less immigration?

That sort of looks like a logically coherent argument, but its not.

For example: Would this be done more easily with more or less pineapples?

Pineapples haven’t caused the problem (if the study on Pineapples and BNP support is accurate, which I think is likely), so why are you questioning what to do with Pineapples?

Yes yes, reductio ad absurdum, isn’t it fun? But do you see my point?

If we attract migrants to work as teachers, then yes, they will help. Even if we attract migrants who can’t work as teachers but are willing to do jobs that people who would be good teachers currently do, then yes, that will help too.

The (1) lack of education, and (2) lack of social cohesion and community spirit have not been caused by immigrants, so why are you asking what immigrants can do to fix what they haven’t broken?

Immigrants will help us pay down the national debt, they help keep the NHS going, they (if the report is to be believed) don’t “cause” racism so why the obfuscatory tactics?

I don’t get it. This is good news, people aren’t horrible racists, they’re just a bit scared of the unknown. They’re not monsters, they’re humans.

Okay I’ve skim-read the report now and it seems fine. I think controlling for % non-white is enough to show that the low BNP vote in these areas isn’t just a demographic artefact (i.e. that the low BNP vote in these areas isn’t simply due to the relatively low white population). However I would caution against infering neighbourhood voting/individual attitudes from a model of voting at a local authority level. Looking at where BNP councillors have been elected I expect that this finding does follow through to more local levels; though this report can’t confirm that either way.

As to what the solution is, we pretty much know that already. Greater equality, high quality education services, jobs and a responsive democracy. The problem is how you sell that to voters who can’t see it as being in their own direct interests?

@ LO

“Familiarity breed tolerance, even acceptance, I’m glad this report is out to dispell some of the myths around immigration”

This report comes from little more then a Labour party front that even has Kinnock on its board of trustees alonside a long list of almost excusive Labour acolytes.

The report is based upon shoddy research defining areas with ‘higher levels of recent immigration’ by way of the new National Insurance figures for one year, between 2008 and 2009 and has to acknowledge that its basic premise is faulty as the most successful BNP area does indeed have high levels of immigration in any case.

It also fails due to the obvious logic that ‘people who object to immigration for whatever reason left have left areas of high immigration, often to go to places that become BNP strongholds. No one votes BNP in Hackney or Tower Hamlets because any potential BNP voter has long since moved. Those who stayed are either happy to live in a multi-racial area, or too poor to do anything about it.’

What a waste of time and paper.

Nicky – Neil Kinnock does not have the magical power of altering the results of statistical analyses. If he had you’d have thought he could have least have alterred the vote count in 1992.

They actually use two measures of migration. Migration 2008/09 (looking at the effects of immigration immediately preceding the election) and Migration change 2002/3-2008/9 (looking at the effect of longer term trends). Now you could argue that national insurance registrations are not a good measure because it ignores the potential effects of illegal immigration. The problem with this criticism is that you’d have to demonstrate that illegal immigration is concentrated in local authorities with very low levels of job creation (Stoke, Burnley etc.) rather than places like Hackney, Tower Hamlets etc where living illegally and unoticed is likely to be both possible and relatively more lucrative.

Barking and Dagenham is an outlier, whose strange position is probably due to the combination in one authority of deprived London suburbs (with high levels of immigration) and vast post-war council estates. The latter I would guess do not have high numbers of immigrants. As for BNP voters moving out of the cities and congregating in other towns I doubt that has much of an effect, simply because I’ve never seen any evidence of inner city Londoners moving to Stoke.

Chris if it were just Kinnock at the core of this organization it just might pass, but when pretty much all of them are Labour appointees I am afraid it doesn’t.

The IPPR are no more then a Labour party organ and anything they produce, especially just before an election, is for no other reason then to support the Labour party.

This was not a report in any academic sense of the word given that half of its statistical basis was so absurdly narrow and only over a year and the other half was hardly any better and the reports authors themselves had to admit its central premise was flawed because the because of area of highest support for the BNP does indeed have high immigration; so you are wrong on that score too.

As for Londoner moving to Stoke, are you seriously suggesting that as some sort of argument? I do hope not, it is ridiculous.

Londoners from places like Tower Hamlets and Hackney have moved to areas like Barking and Dagenham where BNP support is at its highest and people from Birmingham and Wolverhampton have moved to Stoke where BNP support is at its second highest.

As I said, those who stayed in these areas are either happy to live in a multi-racial area, or too poor to do anything about it.

Whatever the IPPR’s links to Labour this report is obviously not a piece of campaigning material. Labour are hardly want to publish “people worried about immigration are all undereducated” before an election because it implies that a good chunk of the electorate are morons. While it may be true that they are idiots, three weeks before polling is probably not the right time to tell them.

I know the report isn’t academic. It hasn’t been peer reviewed or published in a reputable journal, but it doesn’t profess to be. That doesn’t alter the fact that the analysis is fairly solid and the conclusions fairly consistent with other academic sources. I’d love to know what you think is ‘absurdly narrow’ about the statistics though?

Barking and Dagenham as I said is an outlier, but that doesn’t invalidate the model or the report. It just suggests that there is something going on that is particular to that authority and for which the model can’t account. I suspect it’s to do with the very unusual geography of B&D; with some areas of very high immigrant population and some areas of very low immigrant population that resemble similar areas in Stoke, Burnley (e.g. poor education, low social cohesion).

My suggestion that London’s racists move to Stoke was ridiculous because it was a joke at your expense. I can’t seriously believe you think that “all the BNP voters move out of areas of immigration to areas of BNP sympathy en masse” is a reasonable hypothesis. While it’s conceivable that BNP sympathisers might leave areas of high immigration, it’s unlikely that they’d move the 40 miles from Birmingham to Stoke (when they could move to other, closer towns) and almost impossible that they’d all do so.

Chris, there is little more to add to what I have already said; this report is not academic and its central premise has already crumbled, as the authors admit; it is commissioned by an organization that is little more then a Labour front and I didn’t say “all the BNP voters move out of areas of immigration to areas of BNP sympathy en masse” so please don’t attribute that quote to me.

Would this be done more easily with more or less immigration?

Can be done with immigration obviously, because it shows that more immigration = less fear among people.

Don’t hold back cjcjc – go find a nice Asian girl and say hello. She won’t bite, I’m sure 🙂

“Can be done with immigration obviously, because it shows that more immigration = less fear among people.”

That would not appear to be true at all because this time last year a BBC poll found:

“Almost two-thirds of people in Britain fear race relations are so poor tensions are likely to spill over into violence, a BBC poll has suggested.

…60% said the UK had too many immigrants and half wanted foreigners encouraged to leave

Equality and Human Rights Commission head Trevor Phillips said the findings were “alarming”.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7352125.stm

And now:

“Cutting immigration is now the number one issue for both Labour and Tory voters, a new poll reveals.

Fifty-two per cent said they wanted a Tory administration to reduce immigration…
Labour ministers are aware that immigration is now a problem for them among their core voters. Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, recently said that the “white working class” feels ignored over the issue.

In today’s poll it also comes top of the list of concerns among Labour voters with 42 per cent saying it should be cut compared to 62 per cent of Conservative backers.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4840716/Immigration-is-top-issue-for-both-Labour-and-Tory-voters-YouGov-poll-shows.html

And another one:

“More than two-thirds of the 1,500 adults quizzed by YouGov feel the surge in immigrants – 163,000 in 2008 alone – has had a negative impact on the UK…
83 per cent of people want to see a cap on immigration, and 80 per cent want to see more illegal immigrants deported.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2911175/Suns-massive-poll-highlights-voters-anger-over-immigration.html

I’m not surprised people think race-relations are poor when the tabloid media scare-monger so much.

But as I said – the study actually shows that ethnically diverse areas have less racial tension than those which are not. It’s a straightforward point. Just pointing to a poll about people’s opinion doesn’t mean it is a fact that immigration leads to more tension.

@Nicky

Conspiracy Theories rarely move anyone, get some evidence that IPPR have done somthing untoward with regard to this report of as they say “shut up.”

Likewise, an outlier like D&R doesn’t invalidate the research. Either it is an anomoly or all the other constituencies which see significant BNP support are anomolies. I know what I think is more likely.

This report disagrees with your strongly held belief that immigration is bad, so you 1) smear the associatation 2) pretend only academic studies matter when it seems a lot of your information comes from the press 3) pretend that an outliers offers a refutation of an otherwise solid analysis.

Immgirants Rock: deal with it.

Immigrants do indeed rock Left Outside oh and just for the record, the cheery picking of articles by Hutton@33: the first one is 2 years old, the second is 15 months old and it is only the 1,500 person sample by the Scum that is at all up to date but not damning evidence by any means.

I get the feeling you’ll find what you need to find to fit your views and as Sunny says, scare-mongering with small samples is a classic old technique by the tabloids.

Why are people mean to immigrants? They’re just people.

People love people, as George Lamb says,

Why are people mean to immigrants? They’re just people.

People are mean to nearly everyone else because were a paranoid, predatory species.

Nicky – you have little more to say because you don’t know what you’re talking about. I have no interest in attributing anything to you falsely, I am merely trying to paraphrase the nonesense of:

“Londoners from places like Tower Hamlets and Hackney have moved to areas like Barking and Dagenham where BNP support is at its highest and people from Birmingham and Wolverhampton have moved to Stoke where BNP support is at its second highest.”

to show you how ridiculous it sounds. Where is the evidence this has happened?

It’s fine having a point of view, even if it appears intollerant to me. I/we may not like it, but divergent opinions are a good thing in that they force us as a society to test the strength of our assumptions. But if you want to get involved in debates about evidence you should actually try understanding that evidence, rather than just relying on your own point of view as a way of refuting it.

Meh to Dave’s cynicism and yay to people love people.

And well said Chris@39.

If people hate people then why do people want to be near one another?

No that sort of misanthropy is attractive, but its ultimately misses too much of what it means to be human.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/a-tale-of-many-cities/

@ Sunny

“I’m not surprised people think race-relations are poor when the tabloid media scare-monger so much.”

What proof do you have that people don’t make up their own minds and that they need the tabloids to do it for them Sunny? The circulation of the Sun is only around 3,000,000 daily so that not much in a country this size really.

“the study actually shows that ethnically diverse areas have less racial tension than those which are not.”

As someone else here has pointed out, it was not an academic study and was seriously flawed in any case as its central premise turned out to be a lemon but what do you mean that it doesn’t matter that the majority of peoples opinion is that race relations are strained and that they don’t want any more immigration and half want the existing immigrants to be encouraged to leave?

Surely it is of the utmost importance what people think, considering that is the only way racial tensions are formed?

Why are you so willingly to believe a flawed non academic report from an organistion that is heavily tied to Labour, and Labour is heavily tied to the current situation vis-a-via immigration but not independent polls that show what people really think?

Why would immigration be the number 1 election issue if people are concerned about it?

@ Daniel

“just for the record, the cheery picking of articles by Hutton@33: the first one is 2 years old the second is 15 months old”

How is “cherry picking” polls that detract away from the thread any different that the cherry picked statements in the thread that support it? And the reason I staggered the polls over time was to show that concern for immigration and wanting it capped is a consistent theme right up until today. The poll of last year is still reflected today just as the poll of the year before is.

“and it is only the 1,500 person sample by the Scum that is at all up to date”

I think you’ll find pretty much all polls only use that sample size and many smaller. And you confuse the Sun commissioning a poll with the Sun carrying out a poll. This poll was carried out by YouGov

“but not damning evidence by any means.”

More damning then the flawed and non-academic report by IPPR as the polling techniques are peer reviewed and accepted by the academic community and it is an indication of what ordinary people think, not a Labour party offshoot.

“I get the feeling you’ll find what you need to find to fit your views”

I get the feeling that is exactly what you are doing.

Hutton: Well said that man. Common sense is needed here not ideological hot air. This issue has the potential to blow up in all of our faces and is not a political football to be kicked around lightly.

Hutton:

You’re doing a great job of pushing ‘evidence’ of your own agenda, whilst dismissing the evidence of others and getting upset when your ‘evidence’ is challenged. You’re also confusing the tabloid newspapers in question with their readership and you seem to think that the readership exercise a vast amount of control over the publication, they do not. Your failure to even entertain the bias contained in those papers famous for their xenophobia is an overreach on your part.

In response to me pointing out how old two of your three pieces were, all you can muster is a contra accusation of cherry picking elsewhere. Two wrongs do not make a right, find excellent sources that are in date and then you’re onto a winner. You are undermining your own argument by the desire that your contributions are not held up to the same standards you want to en-act upon the main article.

As for staggering the polls over time, you made a false claim that the first one was only a year old rather than two years, so your staggering went, in your own mind that is, 1 year, 15 months and March of this year. That doesn’t wash at all.

As for the size of the poll, I’m afraid polls don;t hold much weight with me, esp. with a sample size of 1,500 and esp. when backed by the Scum, which has a very clear agenda itself when it comes to immigration and this blog has already pointed out bias questioning by YouGov depending on who was asking it to poll.

You see, this seems to be a battle for you and you absolutely so no signs of any movement, utter intellectual intransigence on the matter, with you confusing your opinion (phrases such as ‘more damning’ and 1,500 being enough of a polling size) as fact.

I have no such illusions but you seem to be trying to argue from a position of fact when all you have is your own prejudiced opinion about immigration; as illustrated in your own disregard of counter evidence that disagrees with you.

And so try and not just quote back to me what I say to you, it is tiresome.

meerkat:

Are you a pastiche perchance?

@43 meerkat

Wow.. first it was “rivers of blood”, now apparently it’s going to “blow up in all our faces”. Enoch would be so proud.

The margin of error for a sample size of 1500 from a population of 40m is +/- 3%.

@meerkat

Indeed, common sense and political clichés!

Who needs evidence and research when blind prejudice will do?

If I’m correct, then the two main arguments against this are as follows:

1) Mixed areas which do not support the BNP are so because those that do not like immigration have moved away.

2) Polls repeatedly show that people still rate immigration highly as an electoral issue.

3) Things not peer-reviewed can be dismissed out of hand.

4) Anything affiliated officially or unofficially to any political party cannot be trusted on any subject,

To which I say.

1) We aren’t a mobile bunch. For example, unlike the Germans we buy houses not rent. Moreover our lack of social as a nation is mirrored in our lack of physical mobility. The idea that people who dislike migrants have moved away in huge numbers is extraodinary and without extraordinary evidence you really should shut up in the fave of actual evidence.

2) Most areas of the country fall into the “little recent migration” catergory. Not that most of the country hasn’t been affected, but to pretend that the voters complaining of migrants have regular and meaingful contact with migrants does not tally with the facts.

3) Really?

4) Well that’s everything really isn’t it? Certainly almost any method for obtaining actual evidence or news of anything.

What have I missed and I’ll try to address it.

1500 will do for me (and most) to produce a statistically significant result.

The problem is the phrasing of the Q

Chris I don’t know why you have to bring it down to incivility when I have given my opinion on the report based on the fact that it is not a peer reviewed study, that a fair portion of the source figures are ludicrously narrow based upon one year of NI figures, that it is produced pretty much by a Labour party group and Labour have caused this mess and most damningly that the central premise has proven to be totally wrong.

You did misquote me, that much is clear. And as to ‘white flight’ if you really don’t know of its existence then it is you who “don’t know what you’re talking about” a hell of a lot of the people in B&D are people that moved from the East End of London.

It is a problem even acknowledged by the EHRC and a one minute google search brought this TV report below and some of these articles on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6FqM6lEf4A&feature=player_embedded

“….a conference on race organised by the Commission for Racial Equality, which he chairs, a real-life Trevor Phillips spoke of a crisis as white minorities bolt from ethnic areas, and warned of the emergence of separate and isolated communities….”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634805/White-flight-is-a-fact-of-British-life.html

“The exodus of wealthier whites and influx of poorer migrants with higher birth rates means many of Britain’s towns and cities may soon have majority populations made up of recent migrants.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1530877/White-flight-plus-immigration-always-add-up-to-segregation.html

“Last year, nearly a quarter of a million decent, law-abiding citizens packed their bags and left the capital for good, seeking what they hope will be a better life elsewhere. They moved to outer boroughs, other city suburbs, rural areas, abroad, the back end of beyond, anywhere but here”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janmoir/3553764/Is-it-any-wonder-people-are-fleeing-London.html

It doesn’t surprise me that the video, which is not as conclusive as is being made out, is being promoted by a BNP supporting racist YouTube channel entitled Battle for Britain.

The second link is a personal piece by a man who had a book to shill about the very subject matter he is pushing, the third is 4 years old and draws large conclusions from anecdotal work and the final piece is written by Jan Moir, which speaks volumes in itself.

The trouble is, as I said above, if you hold racist ideas about the damage caused by immigrants (and all that is, is slang for non-whites) then nothing will change your small mind.

If on the other hand, immigration and non-whites do not scare you, then all this seems rather unseemly.

Nicky, these articles say people are leaving London because of crime.

I’m sure Nicky can blame that on immigrants too…

I’m glad I’m white, nothing can be my fault at least.

I’m loving the way someone can criticise a study on the grounds that it’s not peer-reviewed and is produced by a group with an ideological bias, then cite a BNP-posted YouTube video and a bunch of Torygraph op-eds as a counterpoint. I mean, fair enough, irony is long dead – but must you sodomise its mutilated corpse in public?

^

HA! Too true Dunc.

Nicky, these articles say people are leaving London because of crime.

And even then, I’m somewhat dubious… I mean, surely the fact that you can buy a small castle (with several acres of woodland and a good trout-fishing river) in Scotland for the price of a double garage in London might have something to do with it? I very much doubt that every single person who moved out of London did so because of crime.

@56 True, yet I also doubt it was so all of them could buy a castle in Scotland. Though I would like to see a headline in the Scotsman

“Immigrants jump the queue to take our castles”

@57 Dave

Hey, it worked with our oil 😉

..of course it might bring in a whole new meaning to “come home to a real fire” when they find the locals have burned the incomers out!

Having downloaded the IPPR study and read through it a bit, I really give up on stuff like this. It’s so particular and the discussion is so partizan.

My own personal feeling is that I can’t trust it. But that is such a loaded thing to say intself on LC or Pickled Politics, that to even say that feels like going out on a limb and setting one’s self up for someone saying something personal.

DHG @51

It doesn’t surprise me that the video, which is not as conclusive as is being made out, is being promoted by a BNP supporting racist YouTube channel entitled Battle for Britain.

It shouldn’t matter a jot that that BBC London news video was picked up and put on YouTube by the BNP. It was not made by them.

Like this one other BBC one that they posted wasn’t either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWmyWI_youc

There’s an openly racist guy called Dan Dare who sometimes posts on these blogs and when I asked him why he bothers, he said that it wasn’t so much about winning an argument with the people you were conversing with online, but just keeping up the battle and stating your case in the hope of convincing passing casual readers.
”Telling the truth and exposing the lies” is someway how he put it.

I sometimes feel that the left isn’t so much better in its methods and tactics – even if I feel naturally much more inclined to the left view on things myself.

I would say that the words ‘spin’ and ‘spinning’ are what’s going here.
But that’s just my initial opinion. I’d be happy to have it changed.

@59 – I agree with your closing statement, but its only natural. Its impossible to view anything like this objectively.

We already have feelings about it, and we all think were right. I sometimes wonder if anyone can have their opinion changed.

Trouble is damon those BBC pieces are prime example of racist quote mining and when it suits them the BBC is a mouthpiece for Marxist lies and/or a source of material to feed the racist mindset and is okay.

You see those pieces on their own, out of context, are worthless, just as crime stats or op-ed pieces in the Mail and Telegraph.

Dave is right though, the chances of any of this shit changing anyone’s mind is very minimal indeed.

@ Daniel

I am really not trying to be funny, maybe English isn’t your first language, but having read your comment @ 44 twice around 90% of it seems indecipherable into tangible points.

The small parts that can be taken to mean something at all are already pretty apparent: The Sun did not conduct that poll, YouGov did so the fact that it is published in the Sun is irrelevant.

Tabloid circulation is not that high compared to the population here and I have never seen any evidence that people are spoon fed their opinions by a newspaper.

I did deliberately stagger those pieces and should have said two instead of one year but what difference does it really make, people are clearly not happy with more immigration. They weren’t then and they aren’t now, and just to anchor the point some more, here is another contemporary survey:

“The latest update of the “citizenship survey”, which has sought people’s views about community cohesion since 2001, showed that 77 per cent of people thought immigration should be cut, with slightly more than half saying it should be reduced “by a lot”….

…with many voters saying it is one of their highest priorities.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a794d730-1cb9-11df-8d8e-00144feab49a.html

You don’t seem to like the standard peer reviewed practice of a sample size of 1,500 so maybe the one above with its size of 15,000 will make you more comfortable.

And lastly of course I am doing a “great job” (thank you 🙂 ) of pushing my opinion rather then yours because that is the nature of a debate, I don’t agree with the validity of the IPPR report as ‘evidence’ for reasons already stated (as well as Nicky’s additional reasons) and so therefore I don’t agree with you; my style of presenting debate is my own and not any real concern of yours and its not an “agenda” I am “pushing” its an opinion and I am not upset in the least but you sure seem to be.

@ LO

“The problem is the phrasing of the Q”

Really? Because it seems more like a case that the answers are the problem for you. 🙂

Daniel, I am really not sure why someone should have to point this out to you but along with Damon I suppose I must too: That BBC report showed up on a quick google search and so I linked to it, I couldn’t care less who posted it, they didn’t make the report the BBC did, so it is very strange that you think there is something in that to my detriment.

The fact is that we know 250000 Londoners left London in 2007 and the fact is across inner London the number of white school children has fallen every year over the last 5 and less then 22% are now white and that many London areas such as the two I mentioned Hackney and Tower Hamlet have less then 15% white school children with Newham having less then 12% white school children.
Quite obviously this is highly relevant and a very strong indicator of ‘white flight’ and also that the real reason that BNP do not do well in the areas above. Even the head of the EHRC says that not only does ‘white flight’ exist but it is increasing.

I see you have managed to call me a racist already and insult my intelligence because I have the sheer gall to post some evidence that the IPPR report is rubbish and because I have dared to disagree with you presumably, and I can only say grow up and either take part in an honest debate without the school playground name calling or don’t bother at all.

Same to you Dunc. Grow up.

64. Fred Nimbus

I shouldn’t worry about Daniel Hoffman-Gill if I were you, Nicky. He is well-known in these parts and elsewhere for playing the man and not the ball.

Take it as confirmation that he has no meaningful response to offer and must therefore resort to Rottweiler mode.

@ 50 Nicky – I am sorry if I have offended you, but this in the internet; if my mocking you is the worst you ever receive be thankful. Anyway to avoid further accusations of misquoting* I will only refer directly to your own words.

“Chris I don’t know why you have to bring it down to incivility when I have given my opinion on the report based on the fact that it is not a peer reviewed study, that a fair portion of the source figures are ludicrously narrow based upon one year of NI figures, that it is produced pretty much by a Labour party group and Labour have caused this mess and most damningly that the central premise has proven to be totally wrong.”

It isn’t peer reviewed, but that doesn’t mean it is low quality or wrong. They include the details of the analysis, so if there were flaws of the kind that peer reviewers would pick up on we could do it ourselves. Since it’s not a particularly complex model you don’t need to be a statistical expert to assess it.

I don’t know what you think you mean by narrow? That NI figures aren’t representative of immigration? Even if not every immigrant is assigned a new NI number it is highly likely that whether they are or not they will gravitate to the same areas, i.e. where the jobs are. Therefore even if NI data doesn’t capture every immigrant, it will be representative of their distribution, which is really all you need for a comparative model like this one.

The central premise has not been proven to be wrong. An outlier does not undermine the model, it just means there are other factors for which it can’t account. The Rsquared of the model is around 0.8, which means the model accounts for 80% of the difference between areas. By definition this isn’t the whole picture, but it’s very high and enough to see that immigration is NOT related to high BNP voting.

“You did misquote me, that much is clear. And as to ‘white flight’ if you really don’t know of its existence then it is you who “don’t know what you’re talking about” a hell of a lot of the people in B&D are people that moved from the East End of London.”

White flight is a phrase that came out of the USA in a completely different context and so isn’t applicable to this situation. I was lucky enough to be speaking to an expert in internal migration this afternoon, and thought I’d ask her about “white flight” in the UK. She said that problem with the white flight hypothesis is that it isn’t just white people doing it. All ethnic groups are moving away from minority concentrated areas (i.e. the inner cities), but not because of immigration (which actually isn’t concentrated in these areas anymore) or ethnicity (as minorities aren’t racist against themselves) but because of the general suburbanisation of our society.

Anyway, you clearly aren’t open to debate so I’ll leave you to your certainties.

* Consider that part of my incivility. I never intended anyone to think you had used those words, although what difference it makes I don’t know, since what you said meant the same?

Chis , I am going to ignore the personal side of your remarks because it is irrelevant and seem to boil to down to ‘because this is the internet you can do whatever you want’ and quite obviously your remarks were far from the worst thing I have endured in my life but there is just no need for it. Whatever.

As for the IPPR: It isn’t peer reviewed and so it isn’t of any quality at all as evidence; its figures are narrow including using just 1 years worth of NI stats to work towards its conclusion; its premise is false because the highest area of BNP support is also an area of high immigration, its authors are pretty much the Labour party and the conclusions are rubbish but do, quite predictably, let Labour off the hook for the rise of the BNP.

I can’t really be any clearer on why I think this report is biased piece of nonsense and I am debating this, so I don’t understand why you are claiming I am not.

As Hutton has proven above, the indictions are that a majority of people in this country do not want more immigration and a significant proportion, around 60% expressed that they “wanted foreigners encouraged to leave.” That is the result of an independent poll, not necessarily my view so please don’t join the other guy in arbitrarily smearing me a racist, that is probably the worst form of gutter exchange on the internet and absolutely pointless.

My figures at 63 taken from that BBC report clearly show that white flight is very much a reality (and that in one year 250000 Londoners left London from another source) in one area in London less then 12% of the school children are white, and that area just happens to sit next to B&D which just now happens to be the biggest stronghold of the BNP.

How can you or the person who describes themselves as an expert really claim with those figures that there is no such thing as ‘white flight’? And how people seriously claim that in areas like this the BNP don’t do well because there is very few people left there that oppose immigration or multi-culturism and not for the spurious reasons put forward by the IPPR?

Fred,thank you for enlightening me. I read that comment over three times now and it is amazing that it is so long but says so little. Now I understand.

67. Fred Nimbus

No less an authority than Trev acknowledges that white flight is a reality, and that it is ‘accelerating’.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575660/White-flight-increasing-race-chief-says.html

The important question is not whether or not it is happening, but what will happen when it is no longer viable as the coping mechanism of choice.

Trouble is damon those BBC pieces are prime example of racist quote mining and when it suits them the BBC is a mouthpiece for Marxist lies and/or a source of material to feed the racist mindset and is okay.

I think that the BBC YouTube deserves its own thread then.
To try to get to the bottom of what it is saying and the statistics it kicks up.
And whether it is racist quote mining.

As at the other end of the scale it might be argued when might there be a legitimate concern about demographic change in neighbourhoods?

Do you (one) just dismiss all the inner city white working class people of Dublin who have had a certain culture for decades, to be in need of educating up to a higher standard than they have ever been?

And saying really that their working class culture has been crude and basic?

This is a YouTube that is already out of date by a couple of years, about an inner city market in Dublin. A famous market where even the language that the traders speak is so particular and could die out.
I just spent a month walking up and down it most days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJlSGNd7SK8

My point is about the existing white working class culture that exesists and has existed for a long time.
Do we come in and tell them that actually they are verry deprived and socially backward and need educating out of their lumpen state?

I’m done here, arguing with racists is a waste of time. Point by point rebuttals are lengthy, tiresome and an investment in time and effort that is utterly wasted on bigots like Hutton, Nimbus and Nicky, who all just jealous becauseI touched their leader.

And immigration threads here at Lib Con (with the word BNP esp.) attract racists by the bucketload. It’s boring.

I even think my racist stalker has popped back to engage in more trolling. Smashing.

I’ll leave you racists to well in your crap, have fun and I’m grateful I’m not you.

xxxx


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support http://bit.ly/9PVOeu

  2. Jack Holroyde

    RT @libcon: Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support http://bit.ly/9PVOeu

  3. Thomas O Smith

    RT @libcon: Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support http://bit.ly/9PVOeu

  4. Kim Lofthouse

    RT @libcon: Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support http://bit.ly/d4nqfV

  5. Jose Aguiar

    RT @libcon: Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support http://bit.ly/d4nqfV

  6. rJames Glover

    RT @libcon Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support http://bit.ly/cDSJdl

  7. sunny hundal

    RT @libcon Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support http://bit.ly/cDSJdl

  8. Tom Johnson

    ippr study shows BNP support is hindered, not helped, by high levels of immigration http://bit.ly/9A9TuJ (via @libcon)

  9. Some (not entirely original) thoughts on immigration. | Bright Green

    […] have direct experience of it. But from my time canvassing, anecdotal evidence from friends, and the only studies I’ve seen, worry about immigration is much more prevalent in areas which haven’t […]

  10. Alan Marshall

    RT @libcon Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support http://bit.ly/9PVOeu

  11. Immigration Tips

    Liberal Conspiracy » Study shows immigration does not increase BNP …: It conducted regression-based analysis to … http://bit.ly/bVMFnR

  12. uberVU - social comments

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support http://bit.ly/9PVOeu

  13. What happens if Britain’s population hits 70m

    […] Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support (liberalconspiracy.org) […]

  14. Ryan Bestford

    Immigration does not increase BNP support – http://bit.ly/bEDXrp (via @LibCon)

  15. Kevin Arscott

    RT @thedharmablues: Immigration does not increase BNP support – http://bit.ly/bEDXrp (via @LibCon)

  16. Steffen Moller

    RT @libcon Study shows immigration does not increase BNP support http://bit.ly/cDSJdl

  17. Billy Bragg stands up to the BNP - Page 19

    […] report which says that living amongst immigrants makes indigenous people less racist, not more. Liberal Conspiracy Study: immigration does not increase BNP support My own comment on it was at post 59. They also have another thread on a similar topic. Liberal […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.