IPPR report on why peolpe vote BNP

[Drewster]

Doesn't seem to be the case in Barking.

Ah.. Barking... How I miss Barking.....

Moved away from the area 20+ year ago.... it was the centre of National Front (pre-BNP Hitler Youth/Neo-Nazi Skinhead "Political" Party for the benefit of you youngsters) campaigning even then........

[DaveB]

I might be missing something here, but if an area has a high number of immigrants, surely the chances of BNP getting a high approval rating is actually quite low because the immigrants won't vote for them...?

They didn't poll individuals, rather they looked at the social and economic conditions in each of the 152 Local Authority areas looking at things like social cohesion, levels of unemployment, education, economic activity and immigration.

One of the things the BNP claim is that areas of high immigration are the areas that vote BNP, because of concerns about the immigration. This report contradicts that suggesting that in areas that have high immigration the population as a whole are less likely to support the BNP.

[malvolio]

I might be missing something here, but if an area has a high number of immigrants, surely the chances of BNP getting a high approval rating is actually quite low because the imigrants won't vote for them...?

[Gibbon]

According to the report, and I'm not commenting on whether it's right or wrong, Barking and Dagenham are the main campaiging area for the BNP hence the higher level of support. B&D is the only one of the BNP's top 10 areas of support that does not have lower than average immigration.

In areas where the BNP do not campaign increased immigration does not appear to produce increased BNP support, if anything it has the opposite effect.

The implication from the study is that BNP campaigning generates the appearance of a problem that the BNP offer a "solution" to.

Interesting and reasoned, I must be on the wrong Forum, must get back to ClassicalFeckWits.com

[northernladuk]

This is NorthernLad you're talking about.
From his posts on other issues, he's not the sharpest tool in the box.
Although tool he certainly is.

Shame I am not the one constantly named in other threads for similar crimes across the board hey... Obviously I am still in the masters shadow here hey.

[sasguru]

Thats not the report, thats the summary of the findings. If you want the entire thing, it's a lot longer than 3 paragraphs and includes the methodology used and the data collected, then try clicking on the link in the first paragraph or the link at the bottom that both lead to the full report and are labelled accordingly.

If you still dont agree with it, fair enough, but declaring it crap without reading it just makes you look daft.

This is NorthernLad you're talking about.
From his posts on other issues, he's not the sharpest tool in the box.
Although tool he certainly is.

[northernladuk]

In that case I may go and read this but still think that summary is crap.

[DaveB]

And have you read it? Did you think the content expanded sufficiently on the summary to make it more plausible?

Yes, and Yes.

[northernladuk]

Thats not the report, thats the summary of the findings. If you want the entire thing, it's a lot longer than 3 paragraphs and includes the methodology used and the data collected, then try clicking on the link in the first paragraph or the link at the bottom that both lead to the full report and are labelled accordingly.

If you still dont agree with it, fair enough, but declaring it crap without reading it just makes you look daft.

And have you read it? Did you think the content expanded sufficiently on the summary to make it more plausible?

[DaveB]

LOL What a load of crap. I notice that the report here is less than three paragraphs long. This stinks of a case of cherry picking certain information to publish in the summary to paint a distorted picture. For each of the bullet points there is a whole host of reasons this is and they are not mentioned. For example. The insinuation that people with better qualifications don't vote BNP. Maybe that is because they can make something of themselves and move to areas untouched by a majority of the issues BNP stand for therefor don't feel they need to vote. To pin the vote against intelligence is a very very poor conclusion to an issue IMO...

Don't get me wrong. Am not in favour of the BNP but this is just rubbish whoever it is.

Thats not the report, thats the summary of the findings. If you want the entire thing, it's a lot longer than 3 paragraphs and includes the methodology used and the data collected, then try clicking on the link in the first paragraph or the link at the bottom that both lead to the full report and are labelled accordingly.

If you still dont agree with it, fair enough, but declaring it crap without reading it just makes you look daft.

[Mich the Tester]

Alienation not immigration fuelling BNP support, says new ippr report

The conclusion seems to be that people who vote BNP do so largely as a result of poor education, lack of social cohesion, lack of direct contact with migrants, poor self esteem and disenchantment with the political process.

In other words, they're thick as tulip with no qualifications and no friends. Fair enough.

[DaveB]

Doesn't seem to be the case in Barking.

According to the report, and I'm not commenting on whether it's right or wrong, Barking and Dagenham are the main campaiging area for the BNP hence the higher level of support. B&D is the only one of the BNP's top 10 areas of support that does not have lower than average immigration.

In areas where the BNP do not campaign increased immigration does not appear to produce increased BNP support, if anything it has the opposite effect.

The implication from the study is that BNP campaigning generates the appearance of a problem that the BNP offer a "solution" to.

[northernladuk]

Alienation not immigration fuelling BNP support, says new ippr report

The conclusion seems to be that people who vote BNP do so largely as a result of poor education, lack of social cohesion, lack of direct contact with migrants, poor self esteem and disenchantment with the political process.

It directly conrtadicts the BNP's claims that areas of highest immigration have the strongest support for the BNP. In fact the opposite appears to be the case.

LOL What a load of crap. I notice that the report here is less than three paragraphs long. This stinks of a case of cherry picking certain information to publish in the summary to paint a distorted picture. For each of the bullet points there is a whole host of reasons this is and they are not mentioned. For example. The insinuation that people with better qualifications don't vote BNP. Maybe that is because they can make something of themselves and move to areas untouched by a majority of the issues BNP stand for therefor don't feel they need to vote. To pin the vote against intelligence is a very very poor conclusion to an issue IMO...

Don't get me wrong. Am not in favour of the BNP but this is just rubbish whoever it is.

[Gibbon]

Alienation not immigration fuelling BNP support, says new ippr report

The conclusion seems to be that people who vote BNP do so largely as a result of poor education, lack of social cohesion, lack of direct contact with migrants, poor self esteem and disenchantment with the political process.

It directly conrtadicts the BNP's claims that areas of highest immigration have the strongest support for the BNP. In fact the opposite appears to be the case.

Doesn't seem to be the case in Barking.

[DaveB]

Alienation not immigration fuelling BNP support, says new ippr report

The conclusion seems to be that people who vote BNP do so largely as a result of poor education, lack of social cohesion, lack of direct contact with migrants, poor self esteem and disenchantment with the political process.

It directly conrtadicts the BNP's claims that areas of highest immigration have the strongest support for the BNP. In fact the opposite appears to be the case.