You are here:   Columns >  Marketplace > Labour's Losing Legacy


One interpretation of the Bradford West by-election is that George Galloway secured his extraordinary 10,000 majority over Labour by his openly Islamist speechifying, which appealed to the high proportion of Muslims in the constituency. That was undoubtedly part of the story, but it is not a complete explanation. 

Galloway's Respect party took almost 56 per cent of a 50 per cent turnout, but at the last census Muslims were only 38 per cent of the population. Given that many Muslims supported the other parties, a substantial proportion of Galloway's vote must have come from non-Muslims and most of these would have been Christian. By implication, a big chunk of the Respect vote was not for Galloway the man or Islam the religion, but against Labour, which has been the traditionally dominant political force in this part of Yorkshire. 

That emphasises the importance of finding out why such a large number of UK-born voters, of vaguely Christian allegiance in recent decades, should have voted so differently in the by-election of 2012 from the general elections of 2010, 2005, 2001 and before. We need to go back to the New Labour landslide in the 1997 general election. Within a few months a number of major administrative changes to the UK's immigration procedures were being implemented.

No new legislation was passed, and no big debate took place either in Parliament or the media. Nevertheless, the sequel to the new immigration rules was a demographic transformation. Whereas the UK had historically been a nation of net emigration, from 1998 it became a nation of substantial net immigration. The New Labour agenda was corrupt and cynical. The party's top strategists — including such luminaries as Peter Mandelson — reasoned that, because people from the ethnic and religious minorities tended to vote Labour, an influx of people from such minorities would boost Labour's electoral fortunes. 

But this overlooked a serious potential problem. The immigrants — many of whom were Muslim — had either to find work or to become dependent on social security. To the extent that they participated actively in the labour market, they were competing for jobs with the UK-born. This competition was likely to be most severe in low-paid employment. Since people on low incomes have always been the bedrock of the left-wing vote, New Labour's high immigration, import-votes strategy was liable to backfire. That is what happened at Bradford West. 

View Full Article
vera lustig
April 28th, 2012
3:04 PM
If you were anxious about the effects of mass immigration, why would you vote for a man who strives so hard to ingratiate himself with immigrant communities? On an unrelated (or perhaps, dare I say, related?) matter: another legacy of New Labour is widespread electoral fraud. It was under Labour that the right to a postal vote was extended. Electoral fraud has been uncovered in a number of elections, including the current London Mayoral. It tends to favour Labour. The fraud so far uncovered may well be the tip of the iceberg. Also, the deadline for registering to vote has now been moved so close to the poll-date that it is impossible for officials to verify all the names submitted at the last minute. The Government plans to introduce a scheme whereby each individual in a household registers separately; I am not sure if this will help. Also, as a former Poll Clerk, I would say that we are given insufficient authority to question a prospective voter whom we suspect to be, say, impersonating another. I think voters should have to produce photo ID at the polling station. A voter wearing a full-face veil could always be taken to one side by a female official to have her ID checked. The rules of the game have changed.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.