The far right in London; a challenge to local democracy?

Jon Cruddas MP

from http://www.jrrt.org.uk/Far_Right_REPORT.pdf

The British National Party is on the verge of a major political breakthrough. Over the last couple
of years its support and membership has risen dramatically. It has 21 councillors; it polled 808,000
votes in the European election and would have had several MEPs and London Assembly
Members were it not for UKIP. At the recent General Election the BNP saved its deposit in 34
constituencies.

In London the BNP polled 4.9% in the Assembly elections. In seven wards in the Borough of
Barking and Dagenham they polled over 20%. Over the last year in five individual Council byelections
they have averaged some 35%. The BNP polled 14.8% across the whole Borough in
the European elections. This amounts to a sustained pattern of support across the community.
In the General Election, in the Barking constituency, they collected 4,916 votes – 16.9%. In the
Dagenham constituency it was 2,870 votes or 9.3%.

Yet a week before polling day it was commonly assumed that the BNP would poll at least 25%
– in their target wards the BNP were talking of 48-52% support. Personal revelations
regarding their candidate on the eve of poll lost them thousands of votes with many staying
at home. Moreover, the last week of campaigning saw a massive mobilisation of anti-fascist
activists through Searchlight and the trade union movement which acted as a barrier to what
could well have amounted to a political earthquake in the Borough.

We have seen a step change in the professionalism of BNP campaigning – the quality of their
materials is now very high. They have maintained a large visible presence on the streets; their
canvassing is systematic coupled with effective eve of poll materials and sustained polling day
activity. The BNP are confidently predicting 12-15 councillors in London after next year’s
elections.

Yet developments nationally and at local level might well collude to understate the significance
of the BNP threat. The development of 40 or so super marginal seats means the gearing of the
electoral system will downplay the significance of these inroads by the BNP within Labour’s
traditional working class communities. Locally many are already suggesting that the BNP have
been seen off – a passing protest phenomena.

As such, the real danger is that we ignore and fail to confront the reasons for the strength of
the BNP and in so doing reinforce the material conditions that have led to the current state
of affairs.

 

The Context

London’s population stands officially at 7.3 million. The Mayor assumes the Capital will expand
by some 800,000 by 2016 – 70,000 extra a year. London is a world city with 50 separate national
and ethnic communities scattered across it and about 300 languages spoken.

According to figures provided by the Office of National Statistics for the period 1992-2003, the
annual inflows of international migrants into the capital more than doubled from under 100,000
to about 200,000. We must also assume that a large majority of the stock of illegal workers
are resident in the capital. The government suggest these number up to 570,000 in total, not
including dependents. In short, the dynamic at work in terms of population inflows into the
capital is extraordinary, but remains unquantifiable in terms of the real levels of immigration,
economic activity and the total population of London.

Alongside the movements of populations within the city, dramatic house price inflation has
pushed migrant groups, both legal and illegal, into the lower cost housing markets in the capital
such as in Barking and Dagenham. This movement of people into and within the capital requires
a suitable public policy response. However, the baseline of public policy making severely
understates the actual population of London, whilst the speed of change means the decision
making powers of the state can never keep pace with the dynamic movements at work within
the city.

The Borough of Barking and Dagenham remains the lowest cost housing market in Greater
London, with a growing private housing market as a consequence of the right to buy council
properties, in an area built on the principle of socialised housing.

With no corresponding social house building programme, many thousands remain in dire need
of low rent housing. At the same time the Borough retains an enduring legacy of poverty and
an historic under investment in public services.

Rapidly the Borough has become the fastest growing and the fastest changing authority in the
capital. The trend decline in the Borough’s population has been dramatically reversed over the
last couple of years. There are estimates that the population has increased by some 20,000 since
2001; arguably any estimate provides a false impression given the massive amount of people
off the formal statistical baseline of the state, living in the lowest cost housing areas of the
capital.

It is this stark collision between the long term legacy of poverty and underinvestment and the
sheer scale of contemporary change that has created such a rich seam for the BNP. Rapid
diversification within what was a stable white working class community fractures community
cohesion and poses fundamental questions around identity.

The state cannot keep pace with these dynamic movements of people in global cities such as
London. Its decision making is years out of date and is just too slow. The local housing market
has a magnetic pull for legal and illegal migrant groups moving into London yet this dynamic
is off the radar of national Government, which cannot therefore construct a suitable policy
response.

This problem is even more acute when we recognise that Government priorities are focused
on a different part of the country – that of Middle England.

 

Government strategy

The originality of New Labour lies in the method by which policy is not deductively produced
from a series of core economic or philosophical assumptions or even a body of ideas, but rather,
is scientifically constructed out of the preferences and prejudices of the swing voter in the swing
seat.

It is a brilliant political movement whose primary objective is to reproduce itself – to achieve
this it must dominate the politics of Middle England. The government is not a coalition of
traditions and interests who initiate policy and debate; rather it is a power elite whose modus
operandi is the retention of power.

The last election produced a Labour majority of 66 which would disappear on a swing of just
2.5%. We have – even before the boundary shake out – some 40 plus super marginal seats that
would change hands on a swing of about 5% or less.

In short, the political priorities and concerns of a specific minority of swing voters in a highly
select part of the country will become ever more dominant.

At root the gearing of the electoral system empties out opportunities for a radical policy agenda.
On the one hand, policy is constructed on the basis of scientific analysis of the preferences of
key voters; on the other, difficult issues and the prejudices of the swing voter are neutralised.
Labour have become efficient at winning elections and being in government yet within a
calibrated politics where tenure is inversely proportionate to change.

As a politician for what is regarded as a safe working class seat the implications of this political
calibration are immense. The system acts at the expense of communities like these – arguably
those most in need. The science of key seat organisation and policy formation acts as a barrier
to a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change.

The pragmatic, incremental investment strategies of national government cannot begin to deal
with a community undergoing such dramatic change as that occurring in Dagenham, with such
an enduring legacy of need. Arguably it cannot even tread water in terms of investment
strategies as lagged population statistics – which themselves underestimate real populations
– mean year on year budget increases way out in terms of the dynamic movement of people
in global cities like London.

It is not just a question of quantitative resource distribution, however. The national policy
agenda is calibrated for a different type of community which actively compounds our
problems locally. For example, social housing is not a priority for swing voters in Middle England
but is the burning issue locally; we resist the imposition of an academy so we are removed from
the school capital programme as punishment; parent power undermines school leadership and
the effective comprehensive strategy driven by the LEA; the language of choice heightens
expectations but remains a fiction in terms of delivery.

Alongside these quantitative and qualitative policy concerns operates the process of
triangulation. Specifically the way we have sought to neutralise negative political issues
regarding race, immigration and asylum.

The government has never attempted to systematically annunciate a clear set of principles that
embrace the notion of immigration and its associated economic and social benefits. Yet at the
same time it has tacitly used immigration to help forge the preferred flexible North American
labour market. Especially in London, legal and illegal immigration has been central in
replenishing the stock of cheap labour across the public and private services, construction and
civil engineering.

Politically, the government is then left in a terrible position. It triangulates around immigration
and colludes in the demonisation of the migrant whilst relying on the self same people to
rebuild our public and private services and make our labour markets flexible. Immigrant labour
is the axis for the domestic agenda of the government yet it fails to defend the principle of
immigration and by doing so re-enforces the isolation and vulnerability of immigrants. The
government helps in the process of stigmatising the most vulnerable as the whole political
centre of gravity moves to the right on matters of race.

For many of my constituents the value of their social wage is in decline. House prices appear
to rise inexorably upwards whilst thousands and thousands seek nonexistent, new social
housing. Public service improvements fail to match localised population expansion let alone
the long term legacy of underinvestment. At work their terms and conditions are under threat
as they compete for work with cheap immigrant labour. In terms of access to housing and public
services and their position in the workplace many see immigration as a central determinant in
their own relative impoverishment. This remains unchallenged whilst the media and political
classes help demonise the immigrant.

The cornerstone of New Labour has been the assumption that working class voters in
communities like mine have nowhere else to go as they would never vote Tory. Yet this mixture
of population movement and policy failure alongside the national discussion around race has
meant that many are now developing a class allegiance with the far right.

Those communities that must accommodate the new immigrant communities are the ones least
equipped to do so – they themselves have the most limited opportunities for economic and
social mobility. Yet they remain disenfranchised due to the political imperatives of Middle
England whilst political elites ramp up tensions in these very communities due to the way they
triangulate around race.

It is this mixture of class, poverty and race, together with policy issues around housing, public
services and the labour market which has created such a rich seam for the BNP in Barking and
Dagenham. Especially when we see a national debate around race and immigration that
heightens tensions in our community. The government does not offer up solutions because it
cannot deal with the rapid movements in people that is driving many of the local tensions over
resources.

Yet this perfect storm for the BNP has also created a new politics of hope where locally people
are seeking to positively navigate their way through these waters. Despite local material
conditions that provide perfect conditions for the BNP and a national debate that panders to
xenophobic politics, the local working classes are resisting the obvious fascist responses.
Locally in Dagenham a new Popular Front politics is developing as anti-fascists and church
groups, local union branches, voluntary groups and political parties come together to confront
the threat. New alliances are being formed and a new political vitality is emerging – literally
hundreds of people are coming together through community activity and local social solidarity
against the BNP. This very process is democratically rebuilding a community and a political
movement.

 

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust research

It is within this context of rapid change and community tension that this key research by the
Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has been undertaken. Their research provides much needed
insight into what is going on in London both through quantitative as well as focus group work
into the motives behind voting patterns.

The findings are significant. By the 2004 European and London Assembly elections they conclude
it is legitimate to argue that both UKIP and the BNP have entered the political mainstream
rather than being fringe players, with complex linkages between the two parties.

The most important findings relate to why people are voting BNP, emerging out of focus group
research in Barking and Dagenham. A widespread disillusionment with all the traditional
political parties is found but this is especially directed at Labour who no longer represent their
interests. This disillusionment is specifically linked to immigration – the dominant political issue
in these communities.

The research grounds the popularity of the BNP in the material realities of the community –
stretched public services especially in terms of public housing, economic insecurity and pessimism
for the future. Immigration has come to symbolise a more fundamental belief in a deeper
malaise in the country overseen by the mainstream political classes.

Most importantly it offers no comfort to those in the Labour Party who see the solution as one
of ever more hardline policy positions on immigration and asylum – these are seen as election
stunts. Both main parties are seen as deliberately boosting patterns of immigration whilst
pretending otherwise.

The political formation in Dagenham is a complex one and the sheer rate of change
extraordinary. In many respects it is beyond the power of the state, everything else being equal,
to keep pace with such shifts and adapt public policy accordingly. Yet everything else is not
equal. The imperatives of Middle England serve to disenfranchise communities like these. The
policy agenda fitting the preferences of Middle England turns in on itself in the more traditional
working class community. Some argue these are simply the systemic problems of centre left
governments who seek to retain power against the backdrop of a hostile media. This benign
interpretation of New Labour cannot be extended to their technical triangulations around the
lives of migrants which has helped in the contemporary demonisation of the migrant.

This research by the Reform Trust provides insights into the consequences of this politics in terms
of the rise of the BNP. Some might comfortably conclude that the sheer scale of the change
occurring in Barking and Dagenham, due to its location in London, means that there are no
generalised conclusions to be drawn regarding the BNP. It is a unique combination of forces.
Alternatively, one might argue that all of the factors behind the rise of the BNP in the Borough
exist in working class communities across the country and this research helps us understand
how they can combine to trigger extremism – especially in the context of any future economic
downturn.

 

 

 

May 2006

> > home page > >