Morning:
12°c
Immigration has become a subject so toxic, generating such splenetic aggravation, that it is worth stopping to ask why it is virtually impossible to have a rational debate on the issue.
The most recent row over whether there was a deliberate decision to increase immigration in the years after 2000 is just the latest spasm. What is more serious is the rise of the BNP.
Britain remains moderate, virtually untainted by the extremist nationalism that wracks other countries. In 2009, two and a half million of London's eight million inhabitants were born overseas.
The city is probably the most diverse in terms of its range of nationalities in the world. The rate of absorption since the mid-Nineties has been extraordinary, with an annual net addition (in-migrants minus out-migrants) of 60,000 to 80,000.
It continues to benefit from the creativity and hard work of its vast migrant workforce. And in this year's European elections, the BNP's percentage of the vote in London was below the national average.
However, nationally the party won two seats in those elections. In Yorkshire & Humberside, its vote came close to 10 per cent. In London, 12 BNP councillors were elected in Barking & Dagenham in the 2006 borough elections. Last year Richard Barnbrook won a seat on the London Assembly.
In the same elections, more than 24 per cent of voters in Barking & Dagenham opted for the BNP; 16.8 per cent in Havering and 12.7 per cent in Bexley did the same.
Privately, the political classes are spooked by the growing impact of the BNP, as the hysterical debate over Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time showed.
After the failure to stop the BNP from winning seats on local councils, the London Assembly and in the European parliament, the BBC was seen as an easier target by those, particularly on the Left, who are worried, and rightly so, by the party's notch-by-notch progress.
The BNP's successes are a measure of the failure of the mainstream political parties. The total Labour-plus-Conservative share of the vote has fallen from more than 98 per cent in general elections during the Fifties to barely 68 per cent in 2005.
The mainstream political parties now fight general elections by targeting 150,000 marginal voters via call-centres.
Labour and the Tories have lost virtually all their activist base, which makes it hard to counter an organisation such as the BNP when it moves into neighbourhoods to spread misinformation and outright lies.
Overwhelmingly, the BNP's most fertile territory is in the white working class. So how did the mainstream parties manage to lose these voters?
It would appear that the well-intentioned and necessary efforts of the political class to embrace different communities and reduce discrimination against minority ethnic and immigrant groups may accidentally have sent a signal to some poor white voters that their needs are being ignored.
The massive vote for Boris Johnson in many outer boroughs in the 2008 mayoral election almost certainly resulted from voters in boroughs such as Bexley, Bromley and Havering feeling "left out" of Ken Livingstone's London. Ken piled up the core Labour vote in inner London but his message worked less well beyond Zone 3.
Labour, as the party of government since 1997, cannot escape responsibility for a number of elements in this problem.
The collapse of traditional industries and jobs is one factor; but whatever ministers' equivocations, immigration has also scored highly when pollsters ask voters about their concerns.
However it happened, the increase in immigration since the mid-Nineties was never properly explained to the public. Ministers did not tell people why a major increase in overseas-born residents was occurring nor, for a while, what the benefits to the economy might be.
Latterly, as a "points-based" immigration control system for non-EU migrants has been put in place, some ministers have adopted a harsh tone on migration. But the overall message from Whitehall over the past 13 years has been muddled.
In areas where migrants have settled, councils have had to deal with the complex issues raised by the sudden change in their population.
Migrants boost the economy and increase overall output but also have needs that have to be met locally.
Because Britain is a very centralised country, the Government's resource allocation mechanisms cannot accurately provide sufficient resources to match the needs of areas with large migrant populations.
In New York, as migrants boost the economy, the city keeps most of the additional tax revenue. In London, the Exchequer takes the lot.
The BNP has ruthlessly exploited a perception that public services are unfairly allocated between indigenous residents and new ones. MPs attest to this.
The transformation of the white working class in the imagination and vocabulary of the Left goes deeper than that. As recently as the early Seventies, many on the Left saw the working class as noble, expressing a culture to be celebrated.
Actors such as Albert Finney and Michael Caine built careers on working-class chutzpah. Today, the Left is often suspicious of such people, seeing them as a threatening, racist "underclass".
The Labour Party has done much since 1997 to strengthen public services and make London a better place to live. Until recently, Britain enjoyed a 15-year period of economic growth with a huge rise in public expenditure. There has been significant redistribution towards the poor.
Yet this same period has coincided with the rise of the BNP. Some poorer Londoners - and greater numbers beyond the capital - simply do not see the benefits the Government has brought to them. Instead they perceive a threat from unexpected newcomers.
Migration to London and the UK will continue. Until government explains the good immigration brings, rewards the areas that provide homes for new arrivals and strikes a deal with the remaining poor white population, the BNP threat will remain. We can no longer count on our political parties to defeat them.
Tony Travers is director of the Greater London Group at the LSE.
Reader views (10)
It is not the immigrants who tell the English they can not fly the Cross of St George,in case it offends,it is not the immigrants who would have us be ashamed to be English,i have been called racist because i wanted to celebrate St. Georges Day, and not by an immigrant,a white Labour voter,
That is where immigration has gone wrong,to many allowed in ,and being told that we must all become "diverse" and forget we are English.
- I Albion, Gateshead England
Only big business profits from mass immigration.
Every other aspect of this country's infrastructure suffers.
- Frank, Home Counties, England.
Odd how no mention is made in this article of islamic 'extremism', which is far more widespread, virulent and impassioned than the authorities and 'commentators' care to highlight. That aside, the article says that immigration is beneficial, well let us see some scientific indisputable proof of the over all benefits of such massive immigration once all factors are taken into account: infrastructure, land use - one new house needs to be built every six minutes for immigrants to meet current demand - factionism, sociological and psycological consequences .... (other than in providing votes for the moment for the labour party). This article implies that although immigration is so beneficial, it is now being controlled, presumably to prevent an increase to 70 million souls during the next 25 years. If this is the aim, current efforts may reduce immigration by 5%, not the necessary 75%. Again, it would be helpful if writers such as this provide some tested, scientific proof.
- Helen, norwich
Stephen, London.
Maybe if you worked on your social skills and tried to better yourself, you wouldn't be treated so badly.
The problem with this is the myth that a 'working class' still exists. Since mass class mobility became a reality after the war, those who can, leave. Those who can't, stay. This has resulted in an internal brain drain away from what used to be the working classes.
What's left are people with generationally low aspirations and low education. They are unable to help themselves and take the easiest option - blame someone else for their misfortune. Migrants, Labour, Liberals etc etc etc.
Immigration in this country never stopped a single person getting a job. Lack of education, skills, aspiration and a blame everyone but me belief has.
- Liberal And Proud, London, UK
Maybe Labour lost the vote (if it ever had it!) of all on immigration, when, its sole response to any questioning of its policy, was answered with an accusation of being a racist! No discussion or debate was tolerated by those who imposed policy,(Champagne socialists) but, did not have to live with the daily consequences of it!
- Kevin Sullivan, Roehampton, London
Tony needs to consider why, if the white working class is 'fertile territory' for the BNP, it was nevertheless the WWC that integrated earliest with incomers, who were also usually poor (see Michael Collins, 'The Likes of Us'). It is not that the WWC is inherently hostile to immigrants but rather that(a)the Labour party has totally ignored the indigenous English for the past 20 years (along with almost everything else English) and (b)that the Labour party decided to allow in such a 'vast migrant' population without any infrastructure development to cope with them. So yes, some areas were and are 'swamped' (to use another forbidden word). If Labour now sees its votes coming from migrants (as Andrew Neather has recently suggested) how can it be surprised if its jilted WWC turns towards another party that is making assiduous attempts to court its vote? It is not just that that the WWC perceives that benefits are going elsewhere but also that its very English identity is under threat. English - bad, immigrant - good. Not a good message if you want the English vote.
- Ian Campbell, West Horsley, England
Why should non-UK citizens be provided with social housing BEFORE UK citizens are?
- Manny Goldstein, London, England
Great article but you are in total fantasy land about the economic consequences of migration. The fact that the majority of migrants are low skilled and therefore low paid means that they are NET contributors to the state. In many cases one trip to the doctors or hospital can wipe out an entire NI contribution, that is if they actually pay any tax or national insurance. More worrying is he legal migration from the new EU. Dont believe the propoganda, far from improving, the financial state of these countrie is deteriorating and more people live below the poverty line now than under communism. Countries like Hungary are a basket case and Poland has one of the largest black markets in the developed world. Until things change at home migration to the UK will continue and increase. With low empolyment, low wages, low state benefits and third world public services where would you go to find a job, have a baby. The answer is not difficult
- Petet Workman, London
Go and see how single (working) white male's are treated at council housing offices and you'll begin to understand why we feel so marginalised.
- Stephen, London
Maybe Labour lost the white working class because the kind of economic growth Tony Trevors is talking about only benefits rich people. The kind of economic growth that benefits working class people is the kind that produces labour shortages leading to high wages not flooding the country with cheap labour and making some of the largest cities in the world even more crowded.
- Stephen Wordsworth, Bristol, England
