Skin deep democracy by Mohamed Rahumathulla Mohamed

Skin-deep democracy

How race, religion and ethnicity continue to affect Westminster politics Anya Hart Dyke and George Readings

Quilliam is the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first counter-extremism think tank. Located in London, our founders are former leading ideologues of UK-based extremist Islamist organizations. Quilliam aims to generate new thinking through informed and inclusive discussion to counter the Islamist ideology behind terrorism, whilst simultaneously providing evidence-based recommendations to governments for related policy measures. Our strategic communications work involves research projects, training seminars, public events, specialist roundtables and media campaigns to empower civil society to work towards improved national cohesion, Muslim integration through respect for scriptural diversity, and encouragement of political pluralism.

For further information contact: Quilliam Email: information@quilliamfoundation.org Tel: +44 (0)207 182 7280 www.quilliamfoundation.org

Skin-deep democracy How race, religion and ethnicity continue to affect Westminster politics Quilliam, September 2010 ÂŠ Quilliam 2010 - All rights reserved ISBN number: 978-1-906603-14-4 Disclaimer: The views of individuals and organizations used in this report do not necessarily reflect those of Quilliam.

Skin-deep democracy

How race, religion and ethnicity continue to affect Westminster politics Anya Hart Dyke and George Readings With contributions from Sophie Thompson

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Skye Blyth-Whitelock, Natalie Stanton, Conor Roarty, Mohamed Tarraf, Sam Murray and Erica Dobin for their help with this project. Additional thanks to all at Quilliam.

Skin-deep democracy

Contents

Contents Glossary

Introduction

Methodology

Chapter One: Racism, Typecasting, Tokenism and Community Politics

I The current state of affairs

I.I Labour

I.II Conservatives

I.III Liberal Democrats

II DERR PPCs: An ‘asset’ or a ‘liability’?

II.I ‘Asset’: Are DERR PPCs really more successful in seats with large DERR populations?

II.II ‘Liability’: Are the electorate actually hostile to DERR PPCs?

II.III Party racism and sexism persists

II.IV Inter- and intra-DERR group pressures on candidates

III Targeting the ‘bloc vote’ at the expense of social cohesion

III.I Manipulating ‘bloc votes’ by empowering traditional clan structures

III.II Manipulating ‘bloc votes’ by using controversial and divisive issues

IV Pigeon-holing: Limiting DERR politicians to talking about so-called ‘DERR issues’

V ‘Diversity’ initiatives and a reluctant party membership

V.I Resistance to centrally-backed candidates

V.II DERR politicians as credible role models

V.III Tokenism

V.IV The need for a refreshed party membership

VI Positive action and discrimination – counter-productive?

VI.I The inefficacy of positive discrimination

VI.II The need to mainstream DERR initiatives

Chapter Two: Case Studies

I Case Study One – East London

I.I Profile of Tower Hamlets

I.II Actions by political parties in Tower Hamlets

I.III Influences from other groups and bodies

II Case Study Two – Birmingham

II.I Profile of Birmingham

II.II Actions by political parties in Birmingham

II.III Influences from other groups and bodies

III Case Study Three - The BNP and DERR political participation

III.I The rise of the BNP

III.II Responding to the BNP: Mainstream parties pandering to prejudice

Conclusion

Recommendations for Political Parties

References

Appendix A: DERR MPs and PPCs (2010)

Skin-deep democracy

Glossary

BAME

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic

BME

Black and Minority Ethnic

BNP

British National Party

CCHQ

Conservative Campaign Headquarters

CLP

Constituency Labour Party

DERR

Different Ethnic, Racial and/or Religious

EMO

Ethnic Minority Officer

Hizb ut-Tahrir

IFE

Islamic Forum Europe

LCA

Local Conservative Association

MEP

Member of the European Parliament

Member of Parliament

NEC

National Executive Committee

NMWAG

National Muslim Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Advisory Group

OBV

Operation Black Vote

OSI

Open Society Institute

PPC

Prospective Parliamentary Candidate

Skin-deep democracy

Introduction

Introduction Despite being heralded as “a real breakthrough”1 and “black politics [coming] of age,”2 the election of 27 non-white Members of Parliament (MPs) in the 2010 General Election – more than ever before – still leaves the House of Commons failing to reflect an increasingly pluralistic Britain. This report looks at how Different Ethnic, Racial and/or Religious (DERR)3 candidates from across the three main parties have fared in their bid to get selected and elected, and the ways in which party practices have served to both help and hinder their political ambitions. The basic goal of this report is to highlight ways in which the actions (or inaction) of the main parties can lead to individuals unfairly being denied opportunities to partake fully in political life. As such, the currently low number of DERR individuals in Parliament should be seen as a symptom of existing failures within British politics. While increasing the number of DERR MPs will bring certain benefits, it is not a goal in and of itself. Rather, it should be an indicator that those barriers that currently hold some DERR politicians back no longer exist. That is to say, ‘success’ is not to be measured in strictly mathematical terms (with the percentage of MPs who are white, black, Asian, etc exactly matching the percentage of the general population of that background) but by ensuring that everybody who wants, and has the ability, to become involved in politics has an equal opportunity to do so. A prospective parliamentary candidate (PPC) should be selected by political parties on the basis of merit, and, if successful, elected by voters on the basis of their commitment to representing constituents. Ideally, then, this entire process should be blind to race, religion, ethnicity and other differences. It should rather be concerned with candidates’ expertise, capability and commitment. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case; candidates continue to be boxed as better able to represent voters on the basis of their religious conviction or skin colour. This risks (further) ghettoization and undermining social cohesion. Identity politics conducted on the basis of superficial labels of ‘ethnicity’ or ‘race’ trivialize the importance of individual life experiences and ignore associations forged on more than one basis. Political parties must focus, rather, on a ‘common good’ citizenship politics that cuts across ethnicity, race and religion and which is truly representative. Of course, the campaign to increase the number of DERR MPs must be part of broader initiatives to diversify Parliament so as to include other socio-economic groups, professions, genders and so on. Tackling under-representation must also take account of the wider context of supply-side issues pertaining to contacts and finances and the need to make Parliament more workable.4 These issues, however, are largely outside the remit of this report. Disenfranchisement compromises security Political representation can also be thought of as symbolic, as signifying equality of access for all to realize their political rights. Political structures and entities that do not reflect the country as its citizens see it may undermine their commitment to serve its interests. Failure to meaningfully address the perception (and reality) of disenfranchisement can then have serious implications for domestic stability and security:

1 BBC, ‘Labour keeps ‘most at risk’ seat Birmingham Edgbaston’, BBC News, 7 May 2010. 2 Guardian Politics Blog, ‘Election results: Black politics ‘comes of age’ in Britain’, Guardian, 7 May 2010. 3 Different Ethnic, Racial and/or Religious (DERR). Talk of ‘minorities’ and ‘communities’ takes facts, such as individuals having the same colour skin or professing the same religion, and imbues them with an often unjustified level of meaning, for example presupposing that they share common interests, concerns and goals. It also exaggerates their difference from other individuals of other backgrounds in society. Saying that an individual is ‘from a minority community’, or ‘a member of an ethnic minority’ risks being understood to mean that his or her ‘community’ is only those of the same background and that he or she is not as much a part of wider British society as anybody else. The authors of this report reject the assumptions that often accompany terms such as ‘minority’ and ‘community’, which is why this report refrains from using terminology which has previously been standard in this field. Instead of terms like BME (Black and Minority Ethnic), BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) or ‘ethnic minorities’, which have this intellectual ‘baggage’, the authors have decided to use ‘Different Ethnic, Racial and/or Religious’ as a way of acknowledging the increasingly diverse backgrounds of British citizens, without assuming or implying anything else about the individuals to whom this descriptor is applied. 4 Childcare facilities, late night sittings, adversarial debate, outmoded language, limited worship facilities and so on.

Skin-deep democracy

Introduction

1. Perceptions of political disenfranchisement damage national cohesion. The result of this (general apathy, withdrawal from public life etc) in extreme circumstances can potentially even lead to violence. For example, following the summer of riots in 1981 across the UK, ‘[t]here was a widespread recognition that unless black activists were given a political stake in the system, their frustration could threaten the stability of Britain’s inner cities’.5 Similarly, following the riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley in 2001, the ‘Cantle Report’ concluded that where individuals do not feel that they have a stake in political leadership, cohesion is hard to achieve.6 Inclusion in decision-making bodies at all levels of governance is an important step towards realizing this.

5 K. Malik, (2009), From Fatwa to Jihad, (London: Atlantic Books), pp. 57-61. 6 Home Office (2001), ‘Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team Chaired by Ted Cantle’. 7 Home Office (2010), ‘Channel: Supporting Individuals Vulnerable to Recruitment by Violent Extremists: A Guide for Local Partnerships’, p. 10. 8 Islamist notions of the ummah include only Muslims, as a political ‘bloc’. The Prophet Mohammed’s ummah was a small community in 7th century Medina, which included Jews and Christians. 9 Of grave concerns, for example, is that a recent YouGov poll revealed that less than one in five Britons believe that Islam has a positive impact on British society (19%). Inspired by Muhammad, ‘Press Release: Campaign launched as poll reveals most Britons link Islam with violence and extremism’, 7 June 2010. 10 L. James, (2009), In Defence of British Muslims: A response to BNP racist propaganda, (London: Quilliam).

2. Showing that everybody, regardless of their background, has a stake in Britain and in being British, has a role in preventing violent extremism. Guidance issued by the Home Office identified uncertainty about identity and perceived grievances as two of the four contributory factors that can lead an individual to become involved in violent extremism.7 Political enfranchisement is needed more than ever to offset the ‘dual-marginalisation’ of individuals who feel neither a connection to British culture nor to that of their parents/ grandparents. Otherwise, anti-secular Islamist organizations (both violent and non-violent) that eschew Britain’s electoral democracy and consider it haram (forbidden) for Muslims to participate in democratic politics can appeal to younger generations by offering an alternative (but easily accessible) identity in a commitment to a dreamed future Caliphate centred around a mythologized and politicized vision of the global Muslim community, the ummah.8 This Islamist identity, where ‘Muslim’ is its sole defining feature, serves to divide those who adopt it from others in society. Rather than emphasising what brings people in society together, such exclusivist identities serve to divide up society into balkanised groups, thereby undermining Britain’s pluralism. 3. In the same way, operating an equal opportunities policy that enables ethnic minorities to participate in political life undermines the far-right arguments of the British National Party (BNP), who portray DERR citizens as though they do not, and do not want to, make a contribution to Britain’s public life.9 Moreover, more widespread participation serves to undermine the simplistic and negative stereotypes of Muslims10 and other DERR groups peddled by the BNP and sections of the media, by familiarizing those who have limited contact with DERR groups in general, and accomplished DERR individuals in particular, through exposure in public service. Exploiting Britain’s pluralism and entrenching divisions This question should not be seen purely through a security or cohesion prism, however. As a function of their British citizenship, each British citizen has a right to be involved in the democratic structures of the state through voting for whomsoever they feel would best represent their interests and concerns in Parliament. Where parties decide to field a particular candidate in one constituency simple because he/she shares a background with a large proportion of the electorate, this can undermine the system of democratic representation and reduces the candidate (and the electorate) to being one-dimensional caricatures defined by their DERR background rather than the full complexity of their multi-faceted personalities and the full range of their political views. The consequences of such tactics are serious for DERR voters and society as a whole:

Skin-deep democracy

Introduction

1. The division of society along racial (and/or ethnic and religious) lines through the normalization of the idea that voters of a certain DERR background can only be represented by individuals sharing that background. These assumed-to-be-homogenous group identities are often much more feeble than is realised, but politicians who deal with voters through such racialised paradigms risk reinforcing them and encouraging dangerous and divisive ‘group-think’. The result of this is to discourage voters from engaging with politics as individual citizens with the interests of the entire community at heart. 2. This also limits opportunities for DERR politicians who are encouraged to believe that they cannot represent constituencies which do not include large numbers of constituents of their background. Also, white politicians with aspirations to represent a constituency with a larger than average DERR population may find their opportunities being unfairly limited because that seat has been ‘profiled’ for a DERR candidate. Ideas that representation of DERR groups is best achieved by DERR MPs must be rejected to ensure that everybody, whatever their background, has an equal opportunity to become involved in politics. 3. Furthermore, as some DERR individuals suffer disproportionately from limited access to mainstream means of accessing the corridors of power, such as professional lobby groups, social patronage and advisory groups, there is a risk that their voices can be co-opted by so-called ‘representatives’ with whom they share no more than a specific DERR background. Those sharing a DERR background are neither clones of one another nor do they have concerns that are necessarily distinct from those of other citizens. The lazy assumption that representation of DERR individuals is best achieved by DERR politicians can, in fact, deny DERR voters their voices as individual citizens with a range of interests, aims and concerns. 4. On the other hand, it is in this context that parties must consider the extent to which their efforts to reach out to DERR voters and invite DERR candidates to stand for public office may in fact be responsible for fuelling the feeling of abandonment proclaimed by BNP voters and espoused through the BNP’s rhetoric. There is a danger that, where mainstream parties appeal to specific groups on the basis of race or faith over issue-based, policy engagement, it fuels and gives credence to the BNP view that the white traditional working-classes are being marginalized and treated as second class citizens within the UK, eventually fuelling far-right hatred and even violence. This report also rejects the ideas of a ‘black vote’, ‘Muslim vote’ or that there are ‘DERR issues’ which define how DERR voters are likely to vote above and beyond other issues with which white voters are concerned. Undeniably, certain issues like police ‘stop and search’ powers disproportionately affect young black men,11 but it is equally undeniable that issues like the economy, housing, the health service and education standards are important to all voters, regardless of their background. It is deeply simplistic to suggest that a DERR voter will decide how to cast their vote based largely on how the parties deal with so-called ‘DERR issues.’ Whilst politicians should, where possible, be addressing the concerns of all constituents, the practice of politicians addressing certain ‘DERR issues’ to gain a ‘bloc vote’ of DERR support,

11 A. Travis, ‘Black and Asian people targeted in stop and search surge’, Guardian, 30 April 2009.

Skin-deep democracy

Introduction

is a dangerous game to play. Although they may lead to some short-term electoral successes, attempts by politicians to manipulate voters by playing to certain aspects of their identity in the hope that this will encourage a ‘bloc vote’ in their favour, risk encouraging fault lines to develop within Britain’s pluralistic society. The report is divided into two main chapters: chapter one presents an overview of the three main parties’ relationships with DERR groups over the years and details the experiences of party candidates in the most recent election as well as previous ones. This chapter deals with a range of issues including: typecasting candidates for certain seats and resistance from racist party members; parties’ use of undemocratic and patriarchal community leadership structures and sensitive issues in their campaigning; pigeon-holing candidates which compromises their contribution to political life; existing party attempts to improve under-representation and the danger of fasttracking candidates; and finally the need for longer-term thinking on diversifying Parliament. Chapter two focuses on two regional case studies (East London and Birmingham) and on the impact the BNP has had on cross-party efforts to tackle under-representation. It is hoped that, by highlighting these issues, this report can both encourage and enable the parties to take meaningful action to ensure that everybody who wants to become involved in politics has an equal opportunity to do so, whatever their background. The current failure to do so not only undermines each individual’s right to effective political representation and, if they so desire, to seek election to political office, but it has serious implications for both national cohesion and security.

Skin-deep democracy

Methodology

Methodology For this report, researchers conducted 70 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with PPCs, MPs, approved candidates, councillors and other party members from all main three parties (and one PPC from a smaller party) in the run-up to the 2010 general election. Broken down, a total of 38 PCCs (34 DERR and four white) were interviewed, alongside eight MPs (three DERR and five white) and 24 party members, councillors and approved candidates (20 DERR and four white). These interviews were mostly carried out face-to-face, although some – at the request of the interviewee – were carried out by telephone. All interviews were concluded during the period September 2009 to March 2010. Therefore, where PPCs are referred to in the present tense, this refers to candidates who were running in the 2010 election. The results of these interviews were then compared and contrasted with other publicly available material. While some sections in the report may appear more relevant to one party than another, the authors have sought to balance the enquiry by posing the same questions to all candidates, irrespective of party affiliation. In total 29 members each from the Labour and Conservative parties were interviewed, 11 from the Liberal Democrats and one member of a smaller party. PPCs were contacted for interviews as their selections were announced ahead of the election (sourcing party websites and media coverage). All those who are described as ‘DERR’ in this report self-identified as such during interviews, although most were initially approached based on their name or on pictures provided on their personal websites and elsewhere. Most interviewees requested some level of anonymity and therefore, where interviewees are described, the authors have tried to provide as much information as possible about their background and party affiliation while protecting the source’s anonymity. All interviewees were given the opportunity to review and approve how material from their interview has been used. In some cases, after speaking openly during interviews, interviewees later requested the removal of much that the authors wished to use. Inconsistencies in how interviewees are identified (for example, some are identified only by their race or ethnicity, others by their religion and others with the broad term ‘DERR’) are a consequence of how the source him/herself requested to be identified.

Skin-deep democracy

Racism, Typecasting, Tokenism and Community Politics

Chapter One: Racism, Typecasting, Tokenism and Community Politics I The current state of affairs A key approach to identifying whether DERR candidates are being given an equal opportunity to become involved in Westminster politics is to see which seats they are being selected to run in. Equality should not be judged simply by outcome (how many DERR MPs there are) but by opportunity. Therefore, how and where parties select DERR candidates is as important as the number of such candidates that succeed in reaching Parliament. Of greatest concern is that parties must neither manipulate DERR candidates in a ‘tick box’ approach to improving under-representation, perhaps through wishing to present a fresh, inclusive face to politics as part of a post-expenses image makeover, for instance, nor play ethnic, racial or religious groups off against one another in a bid to undermine political rivals in diverse constituencies. Of course, it cannot be ignored that there are a number of factors at play during the selection process – not least contacts, number of seats previously fought, and finances. Tensions between a supposedly vision-driven central party leadership and relatively autonomous local party bodies complicate matters further. Furthermore, any attempts to improve under-involvement should also involve discussions of retention and promotion once elected, although this is unfortunately beyond the scope of this report.

12 M. Anwar, (2009), Ethnic Minorities and Politics, (Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing), p. 93. 13 Ibid., pp. 89-96. 14 Exit polls after the 1987 election showed that 92% of Afro-Caribbeans had voted for Labour, compared to 61% of Asians, whilst as many as 20% of Asians had voted Conservative. Ibid., pp. 89-91. 15 Electoral Commission (2005), ‘Ethnic Minority Voters and Non-Voters at the 2005 British General Election’, p. 24. 16 See Appendix A for all current DERR MPs. Prior to May 2010 there were 12 (Ashok Kumar passed away in March 2010), but Dawn Butler, Shahid Malik and Parmjit Dhanda lost their seats, whilst Mohammed Sarwar stood down.

Whilst it is important to lay bare the realities for DERR candidates seeking election, with a view to bringing pressure to bear on political parties to stamp out discriminatory practices – be it tokenism, typecasting or being sidelined altogether – it is certainly not this report’s intention that any of the evidence gathered here should serve to dissuade aspiring DERR politicians from entering the fray. Keeping these complexities in mind, this section will explore the current state of affairs with respect to the major parties’ success in giving everyone, regardless of their background, equal opportunity to enter political life. I.I Labour Labour has traditionally had the support of DERR voters, but this is changing. Anwar (2009) cites the perception of the party as ‘more sympathetic to ethnic minorities’ and being supportive of ‘the working class’ as possible reasons for historic support from DERR voters.12 According to his research, since DERR electoral participation began being monitored in the 1974 general election, the majority share of DERR groups’ votes has gone to Labour. But while a vast majority of Afro-Caribbeans have reliably voted for Labour since 1974,13 figures amongst South Asian groups have fluctuated. Even as far back as the 1987 election, increasing numbers of Asians were moving away from Labour,14 although a MORI poll showed that at the 2005 election, Labour continued to be the party most widely supported by DERR individuals.15 As such, it is likely to remain the party that most aspiring DERR politicians focus their ambitions on. Labour continues to have the most DERR MPs in Westminster; currently 16 – only one of whom represents a predominantly white constituency.16 However, one DERR Labour Party member indicated that in spite of the fact that, although Labour was

Skin-deep democracy

I The current state of affairs

“the party of equality”, it simply had not done all that it could do to embrace DERR groups. Indeed, in this research, “the party of equality” has variously been accused of treating those of DERR backgrounds as “voting fodder”, of having racist members and, at times, ignoring certain DERR groups in favour of focusing on others. “Labour sees minorities as voting fodder; nothing else. BME groups are targeted for votes, but there is simply no politics for BME people in the Labour Party. There is an equalities hierarchy in the Labour Party and some are more willing than others to have the debate. People are scared of being called racists or being thought of as having a complex if they raise issues specific to race or nationality.” (former Labour councillor, black) “In Labour there are excellent people who believe in democracy and representation, but there are others who can’t cope. They are not even aware that they’re racist, sexist.” (Labour PPC, Muslim) “Hindus are a forgotten minority in this country. When the issue of race comes up, Labour goes to the Muslims [...] this is because Muslims are the most numerous, it’s a numbers game.” (Labour PPC, Hindu)

“Labour sees minorities as voting fodder; nothing else. BME groups are targeted for votes, but there is simply no politics for BME people in the Labour Party. There is an equalities hierarchy in the Labour Party and some are more willing than others to have the debate. People are scared of being called racists or being thought of as having a complex if they raise issues specific to race or nationality.”

David Michael, a long-serving Labour Party member and Special Adviser on Community Cohesion and Community Relations to Lewisham’s Mayor and Lewisham Council,17 resigned from Labour believing that it still views DERR individuals as party foot soldiers rather than potential political representatives. “Labour talks about the need for BME role models and Harman [Harriet Harman, then Minister for Women and Equality] laments how few black women there are in Parliament and in local government but it’s like fool’s gold. It is my personal experience that the Labour Party is hoodwinking black people to join the party as foot soldiers and to do the donkey work. The Labour Party leadership knows full well the system that they’re up against. [Local party] branch chairs need to absorb what Harman is saying – they need help from someone who can help them understand [these issues]. The Labour Party needs to put systems, structures, policies and procedures in place with checks and balances to make Harriet Harman’s aspirations a realistic experience for black people immersed with rank and file Labour Party members.” Michael publicly criticized the selection of Councillor Heidi Alexander to succeed Bridget Prentice MP in Lewisham East, arguing that “outstanding black candidate” Florence Nosegbe should have been chosen instead, blaming Labour’s “scandalous apartheid system” of marginalizing DERR candidates.18 Over-emphasis on ‘ethnic identities’ obviously and dangerously exaggerates the differences between ethnic groups and obscures what they hold in common. Bill Morris, former General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union (the first black leader of a British trade union) wrote in his Foreword for IPPR’s report on race and representation in British politics (2002) that ‘[a]rguably, the greatest test for any political party is whether it can reach out to a cross sections [sic] of interests: to different racial groups, to young people, to Muslims, to Sikhs and those of other faiths’.19 In order to achieve this, the test for parties (and Labour in particular), is to do so on the basis of shared interests; a ‘common good’ politics. In May 2010 Labour fielded 4320 (new) DERR Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) and eight of these were elected to Parliament.

17 David has also served the Lewisham Constituency Labour Party (CLP) on its Executive Committee, General Committee, as its Ethnic Minority Officer (EMO) and as Chair of Catford South Ward 18 News Shopper Online, ‘LEWISHAM: Race advisor slams Lewisham over ‘apartheid system’’, News Shopper, 23 November 2009. 19 R. Ali, C. O’ Cinneide, (2002), Our House? Race and Representation in British Politics, (London: Institute for Public Policy Research). 20 42 PPCs were identified as DERR in Labour Party, ‘Fairer Britain, your choice’, 28 May 2010, and the authors identified an additional candidate not included in the Party’s publication. See Appendix A for a full list of DERR PPCs who ran in the 2010 election.

Skin-deep democracy

I The current state of affairs

“My MP said that the party needed ‘people like you’. I used to think they meant ‘people like you’ who are dynamic, a hands-on councillor, a hard worker and so on, but in hindsight, they probably meant they needed minorities to bump up the presence of BME candidates.”

I.II Conservatives The Conservatives’ inability to appeal to DERR voters in spite of growing prosperity amongst black and Asian citizens was explained by Saggar: “The Tories have defaulted on winning the ethnic minority vote. The default is the long term ghost of [Enoch] Powell in the party. The grassroots is made up of little Powellites, despite what the leadership try to do”.21 In January 2010, the Daily Mirror published a year’s worth of racist remarks made by Conservative councillors, MPs and former candidates. For example, one Conservative councillor was reported to have apologised after posting a picture of a gorilla alongside a comment about an Asian colleague on a blog.22 As black Conservative PPC for Chippenham Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones says, the party has had to work hard since 1968 to show to black voters that they are indeed an ‘inclusive’ party.23 Whilst individuals within the party who hold such views may be relatively few and far between, the Conservatives’ image has undoubtedly been tarnished. In response, the party leadership has made a concerted effort under party leader David Cameron to reach out to both upwardly mobile DERR groups and disillusioned DERR Labour voters. The Conservatives had only two DERR MPs prior to May 2010, both standing in predominantly white seats,24 yet in 2010 they fielded an unprecedented number of DERR candidates (44),25 six of whom were in Conservative-held, predominantly white seats with sizeable majorities over other parties.26

21 V. Dodd, N. Chatterjee, ‘Tightrope walk in search of harmony’, Guardian, 24 April 2001. 22 B. Roberts, ‘Proof that Cameron’s Tories are as racist and sexist as ever’, Mirror, 2 January 2010. 23 N. Armstrong, ‘’Black Farmer’ wants Chippenham – Entrepeneur Wilfred EmmanuelJones bids for UK constituency seat’, Gleaner, 30 March 2009.

However, it would seem that Cameron’s campaign has a great deal of ground to cover as several interviewees reported that members of the Conservative party were, at best, confused and inexperienced in dealing with race. At worst, at least one DERR party member reported that their local Conservative MP seemed more concerned with increasing visible diversity than with attracting able DERR candidates. “The Conservatives have always failed to attract all the community – there is misunderstanding on both sides.” (Conservative councillor, Asian) “The party doesn’t understand race so it tends to ignore it.” (Conservative PPC, black)

24 Adam Afriyie in Windsor and Shailesh Vara in North West Cambridgeshire.

“The Conservatives have no understanding of the divisions within the Muslim communities.” (former Conservative PPC, Muslim)

25 Although the Conservative Party did not provide the authors with a comprehensive number of DERR candidates fielded, these figures are based on DERR candidates identified by the authors. See Appendix A for full list of DERR PPCs.

26 Owing to boundary changes since the 2005 general election, a few party-held seats no longer have majorities, based on notional results extrapolated from the 2005 election. Where it refers to party-held seats, it refers to seats that have retained a majority.

Such impressions do little to bolster the confidence of DERR individuals seeking political careers in Westminster and leaves them exposed to accusations of tokenism from their colleagues. In May 2010 the party saw nine new DERR PPCs elected to Parliament,27 but how inclusive the Conservatives have actually become and to what extent the party is trying to forge links with DERR voters on the basis of the faith, ethnicity or race of certain candidates, remains of major concern, as illustrated in this report.

27 Taking the total number of Conservative DERR MPs to 11.

Skin-deep democracy

II DERR PPCs: An ‘asset’ or a ‘liability’?

I.III Liberal Democrats The Liberal Democrats are the only main party without a DERR MP in Westminster, and they have never elected a DERR MP in a general election (between 2004 and 2005 Parmjit Singh Gill was Liberal Democrat MP for Leicester South, elected in a by-election).28 In the 2010 election they fielded slightly more DERR candidates than Labour – 4529 to Labour’s 43 – although only two were in winnable seats with swings required of less than 5%. Speaking in April 2010, a former Liberal Democrat councillor claimed he tried to “press them [the party] on equality” but that they did not want to know. He alleged that “[t]here’s a lot of window dressing”. Simon Woolley, Director of Operation Black Vote,30 described party leader Nick Clegg as having “inherited a party resistant to change”.31 None of the party’s DERR PPCs were elected in May 2010.

Key points In interviews, several Labour party members alleged that the party typecasts both DERR and white PPCs to play to the demographics of particular constituencies, marginalizing good DERR and white candidates in certain areas. Interviewees alleged that the Party leadership doesn’t regard its DERR members as potential political representatives but as lower rank foot soldiers. Whilst the Conservative party has made strides in addressing the perception that it is racist, many people within the party remain uncomfortable with talking about race. Some steps have been taken by the party to address visible diversity without necessarily tackling underlying issues. The Liberal Democrats, despite enjoying a large swing from formerly Labour-supporting Muslim voters in the 2005 election and fielding a large number of DERR PPCs, still have no DERR MPs.

II DERR PPCs: An ‘asset’ or a ‘liability’? This section will discuss the degree to which parties are failing to ensure equality of opportunity for DERR candidates. Whilst there are a number of factors at play in candidate selections, an urgent rethink of how the selection process works is essential. A good starting point in evaluating the limits of a party’s success in selecting DERR candidates is to see the number of new DERR MPs in an election as a percentage of the new intake of MPs overall.32 Moreover, if the number of DERR applicants to all three main parties were made publicly available,33 as well as the reasons they fail to become approved candidates, then claims that candidates from DERR groups are neither interested in applying, nor adequately qualified, could be tested. Whilst DERR individuals have historically been more likely to support the Labour Party, and therefore their political aspirations have often been focused on Labour, party membership figures of DERR groups are not known. Table 1 below shows the number of DERR candidates selected and elected by the three main parties since 1987. This is followed by a graph which shows the percentage of new PPCs for each party who had a DERR background.

28 Singh Gill was elected in a byelection in July 2004 but was defeated in the general election in 2005. 29 The Liberal Democrats’ office provided the authors with the figure of 44, although they were only able to provide a list of the 37 DERR PPCs who had given permission for their names to be released. In their own research, the authors were able to identify a total of 45 DERR PPCs. See Appendix A for full list of DERR PPCs. 30 Established in 1996, Operation Black Vote is a non-partisan pressure group that seeks to establish a political voice for African, Asian, Caribbean and other DERR groups. 31 J. Harker, ‘Liberal Democrat rise could push out black and Asian MPs’, Guardian, 23 April 2010. 32 The number of DERR MPs is shown as a proportion of the total number of new MPs for that party and does not include DERR MPs elected in by-elections. ‘New’ MP is defined as an MP entering Parliament for the first time: the primary source of data is a list of Maiden Speeches from 1979 onwards from the House of Common Library. A parliamentary maiden speech is defined as “[t]he first time a newly elected MP speaks in the Chamber of the House of Commons.” It is assumed that all the newly elected MPs counted made their maiden speeches within two years of being elected. Department of Information Services, (2009), ‘Maiden Speeches 1979 Onwards’, House of Commons Library, 4 December 2009. 33 The Equality Act (2010) has stipulated that political parties must now monitor the diversity of candidates who apply for seats, those who get selected and those who get elected. See Equality Act (2010), 106 (3), p. 68. This is crucial, although it remains to be seen how parties will successfully be able to finance and coordinate such extensive monitoring.

Skin-deep democracy

II DERR PPCs: An ‘asset’ or a ‘liability’?

Table 1: DERR PPCs and new MPs since 198734

1987

14 PPCs 4 (of 62 new MPs)35

6 PPCs 0 (of 53 new MPs)

9 PPCs 0 (of 5 new MPs)

1992

9 PPCs 1/67 MPs36

8 PPCs 1/53 MPs37

7 PPCs 0/5 MPs

1997

13 PPCs 3/182 MPs38

11 PPCs 0/34 MPs

19 PPCs 0/26 MPs

2001

21 PPCs 2/39 MPs39

16 PPCs 0/26 MPs

29 PPCs 0/14 MPs

2005

29 PPCs 2/43 MPs40

41 PPCs 2/51 MPs41

40 PPCs 0/21 MPs

201042

43 PPCs 8/67 MPs

44 PPCs 9/148 MPs

45 PPCs 0/10 MPs

New DERR MPs and DERR PPCs 150

132

110

66 43

4 2005

2010

36 Piara Khabra (Ealing Southall). Khabra died in 2007 triggering a by-election that saw Virendra Sharma take his place.

11.9

38 Mohammad Sarwar (Glasgow Govan), Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow) and Marsha Singh (Bradford West).

Conservative DERR MPs 6.5

6.1

42 See Appendix A for names of DERR PPCs and DERR MPs.

1.5

1987

1992

Liberal Democrat DERR MPs

3.9

1.6 0.0

0.0 1997

Labour DERR MPs

4.7

5.1

40 Sadiq Khan (Tooting) and Shahid Malik (Dewsbury). 41 Adam Afriyie (Windsor) and Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire).

(New) DERR MPs

DERR MPs as a percentage of each party’s new intake

37 Nirj Deva (Brentford and Isleworth) – he lost his seat in 1997.

39 Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) and Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham Perry Bar).

(New) DERR MPs

DERR PPCs

100

2001

35 Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington), Keith Vaz (Leicester East), Paul Boateng (Brent South) and Bernie Grant (Tottenham). Boateng stepped down in 2005 and was replaced by Dawn Butler and Grant died in 2000 triggering a by-election that saw David Lammy take his place.

Liberal Democrat DERR PPCs and new MPs

1997

Institute for Public Policy Research (2002), UK House of Commons (2009), Anwar, Ethnic Minorities and Politics, (2009), Madano Partnership (2010) and Centre For Women and Democracy (2010).

Conservative DERR PPCs and new MPs

1992

Labour DERR PPCs and new MPs

1987

34 Several sources were used for numbers of DERR candidates fielded since no one source contained all the figures required. However, some figures for the same election appeared in more than one source but they did not always correspond exactly. As a result, a margin of error must be allowed for in this analysis. Sources: BBC, ‘Record number of new minority MPs’, BBC News, 10 May 2005.

Year

2001

2005

2010

Skin-deep democracy

II.I ‘Asset’: Are DERR PPCs really more successful in seats with large DERR populations?

The number of DERR candidates selected by the three main parties continues to grow, year on year (particularly amongst the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats), and the number of DERR MPs elected, with the exception of the Liberal Democrats, broadly reflects this increase. The Conservatives in particular have shown remarkable progress since 1987, with 6% of the new Conservative MPs in 2010 coming from DERR backgrounds, compared with 3.9% in 2005, prior to which the party only saw one DERR PPC elected in 1992 (1.9%). Of interest is that in 2010, whilst ‘only’ 6.8% of Labour’s PPCs were DERR,43 11.9% of their new MPs were DERR, reflecting a tangible commitment to getting more DERR MPs into Parliament. For the Conservatives, despite gaining a huge number of seats in 2010, a disproportionately high number of DERR PPCs were fielded in unwinnable seats, reflected in the figures: 7% of PPCs were DERR44 yet, although as many as 6.1% of new MPs are DERR, only six of these (4.1%) defended ‘safe’ seats. Were it not for the national swing towards the Conservatives, it is unlikely that the other three DERR Conservative MPs would have been successful.

“It would not be beyond the realms of possibility to get selected for a safe seat in an area with a high BME population, but I’m here to break down barriers not reinforce them”.

II.I ‘Asset’: Are DERR PPCs really more successful in seats with large DERR populations? A party’s prime consideration when selecting a candidate is of course to choose someone who has the best chances of securing votes on the basis of their appeal to voters, particularly in marginal seats. This must not, however, be at the price of allowing racist or prejudiced attitudes to go unchallenged. Worryingly, the Speaker’s Conference45 findings in 2010, on the basis of broad consultations, concluded that ‘[t]he decision to fall back on ‘more of the same’ [a white, middle class male] may also reflect a belief that the candidate who is a woman, or from an ethnic minority background [...] is, in consequence of those factors, more likely to lose votes and is therefore a more risky choice’.46 Exposing and challenging party assumptions about a DERR candidate’s suitability for some seats over others is imperative if equality of opportunity in political life is to be realized. Ahead of the 2010 election, one DERR PPC, selected for a predominantly white and unwinnable seat, suspected that: “it would not be beyond the realms of possibility to get selected for a safe seat in an area with a high BME population, but I’m here to break down barriers not reinforce them.” This reflects the common assumption that parties can attract DERR voters by offering them a candidate that appears to directly ‘speak for them’. However, Saggar in an interview in 2008 explained that ‘there is “simply no evidence base” for this’. 47 However, this is exactly what seems to have been happening. Up until the 2010 election, 15 out of the 19 DERR MPs elected had represented seats with large DERR populations.48 As recently as 2005, the independent research charity the Hansard Society reported how Labour, ahead of the 2005 election, had determined that seats considered winnable by a DERR candidate were ‘where the constituency had a significant BME population’.49 As we have seen in Table 1, in the 2010 election Labour saw a disproportionately high number of DERR candidates get elected, relative to the number of DERR PPCs fielded. This can be explained in reference to the chart on page 16, which shows that many of Labour’s DERR PPCs were running either in Labour-held seats or seats which required less than a 2.25% swing.

43 43 out of 633 PPCs were DERR. 44 44 out of 629 PPCs were DERR. 45 Established in November 2008, and presided over by the Speaker of the Commons, the Speaker’s Conference has made recommendations for how to tackle under-representation of women, DERR groups and those with disabilities in the House of Commons. Written and oral submissions to the committee were published in 2009 and the Conference’s final report was published in 2010. 46 Parliamentary Business, ’20 October Speaker’s Conference’, p. 49. (henceforth ‘Speaker’s Conference Final Report’) 47 S. Katwala, ‘The hunt for the British Obama’, New Statesman, 27 March 2008. 48 Including by-elections: in 1991 (Dr Kumar for Langbaurgh – renamed Middlesborough South and Cleveland in 1997), in 2000 (David Lammy in Tottenham and Mark Hendrick in Preston), in 2004 (Parmjit Singh Gill in Leicester South) and in 2007 (Virendra Sharma in Ealing Southall). 49 Speaker’s Conference Final Report, p. 61.

Skin-deep democracy

II.I ‘Asset’: Are DERR PPCs really more successful in seats with large DERR populations?

“They [the party] explained to me that they are trying to attract more party members from BME groups and that I, as an Asian Muslim woman, could potentially help them by improving diversity and representation in the party. I felt like I could be the middle person – bridging the gap between BME groups and the party – since it often seems like if you are Asian you have to be a Labour voter.”

43 DERR Labour PPCs

Labour-held Seats Winnable seats (requiring swing of 2.25% or less)

25 8

44 DERR Tory PPCs

Other seats

45 DERR Liberal Democrat PPCs

0 2

6 3

50 Shabana Mahmood, Yasmin Qureshi, Chinyela Susan Onwurah, Chuka Umunna, Anas Sarwar, Valerie Vaz and Rushanara Ali. 51 Sam Gyimah (Surrey East), Helen Grant (Maidstone and the Weald), Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne), Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-upon-Avon) Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) and Priti Patel (Witham). 52 Rehman Chishti (Gillingham & Rainham), Wilfred EmmanuelJones (Chippenham), Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West). 53 Parmjit Singh Gill (Leicester South) and Zuffar Haq (Harborough).

Conservative-held Seats

Liberal Democrat-held Seats

Winnable seats (requiring swing of 2.8% or less)

Winnable seats (requiring swing of 4.5% or less)

Other seats

Eight PPCs were duly elected and six of these were in seats where the smallest DERR population was 14.3%.50 Although the Labour Party lost 94 seats in the 2010 election with a decrease in vote share of -6.2%, it is notable that three newly-elected DERR MPs achieved marked increases – Shabana Mahmood (+3%) in Birmingham Ladywood, Rushanara Ali (+8.4%) in Bethnal Green & Bow, and Anas Sarwar (+3.8%) in Glasgow Central. The Conservatives fielded 44 DERR PPCs, no fewer than six of which were in Conservative-held seats51 and three in seats which required a swing of 2.8% or less.52 The Liberal Democrats fielded the most DERR PPCs – 45 – but with none in party-held seats and only two in seats which required swings of 4.5% or less,53 both of whom were in constituencies with DERR populations higher than the national average.

54 These were Stoke on Trent, Glasgow South, South Derbyshire, Leicestershire South, Bromsgrove, Islwyn, Angus, Broxbourne, Grantham & Stamford, Havant and Rushcliffe.

However, given that the party only saw 10 new MPs elected, and lost five seats, had even one DERR PPC been successful, this would have brought the party almost in line with Labour in terms of the percentage of new MPs that were of DERR background. Of the 45 DERR PPCs in total, only 12 were in seats with DERR populations smaller than the national average.54

55 Black and Minority Ethnic Survey, The Electoral Commission, ‘Ethnic Minority Voters’, May – July 2005, p. 51.

Of similar interest is where parties have selected their Muslim candidates. A MORI Poll conducted in 2005 found that 87% of Muslims disapproved of the British military incursion in Iraq,55 largely explaining Labour’s 2005 election disproportionate drop in

Skin-deep democracy

II.I ‘Asset’: Are DERR PPCs really more successful in seats with large DERR populations?

support in constituencies with large Muslim populations.56 Ahead of the 2005 election, perhaps hoping to benefit from the impact of the Iraq war on Muslims’ support for Labour, the Liberal Democrats fielded no fewer than 21 Muslim candidates, the Conservatives 15 but Labour only 10 candidates (excluding two sitting MPs who were Muslim) which was fewer than the much smaller Respect Party (11 candidates).57 Two of Labour’s PPCs were, however, in winnable seats and Sadiq Khan and Shahid Malik were duly elected. Of the 43 Muslim candidates fielded58 (including sitting MPs Khalid Mahmood and Mohammad Sarwar), 28 (65%) were in seats with a Muslim population higher than the national average. The Muslim News calculated that Muslim candidates were standing in 18 of the top 25 constituencies with the highest concentration of Muslim voters.59 Of the 13 Muslim candidates who were in seats with a Muslim population lower than the national average, 11 were representing parties who were in third place and therefore the seats were effectively unwinnable.60 In sum, across the parties the only winnable seats Muslim candidates were selected for had sizeable Muslim populations and all other Muslim candidates were selected for seats which they were unlikely to win and with low local Muslim populations. This is, perhaps, explained one Conservative PPC, because parties may see a DERR candidate as an opportunity to gain new ground with voters from that candidate’s ‘own’ ethnic or religious background. “They [the party] explained to me that they are trying to attract more party members from BME groups and that I, as an Asian Muslim woman, could potentially help them by improving diversity and representation in the party. I felt like I could be the middle person – bridging the gap between BME groups and the party – since it often seems like if you are Asian you have to be a Labour voter.” Similarly, Conservative Muslim PPC Adeela Shafi had a revealing entry on her biography on the Conservative Party website in November 2009. ‘Adeela is expected to attract many new voters to the party both within her constituency and nationwide because of her unique position as the only Muslim woman currently representing the Conservative Party’.61 The degree to which such tactics are sanctioned by the (local) party is very difficult to determine. Box 1 below shows a number of seats where parties may have selected candidates on the basis of their assumed appeal to members of the same ethnic or faith group, but with mixed results.

56 Top 10 constituencies with largest Muslim populations: Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (-10.75% swing), Bradford West (-3.95% swing), East Ham (-9.6% swing), Bethnal Green and Bow (-8.25% swing), Birmingham Ladywood (-8.5% swing), Blackburn (-5.95% swing), Bradford North (-3.6% swing), West Ham (-9.4% swing), Birmingham Hodge Hill (2004 by-election) (-7.65% swing), Poplar and Canning Town (-10.55% swing), Rochdale (-4.6% swing), Luton South (-6.25% swing), Walthamstow (-5.95% swing), Manchester Gorton (-4.8% swing). This is compared to a national swing of -5.4%. Source: Guardian Online, ‘The Guardian Electoral Results’, Guardian. 57 Q News Online, ‘Constituency Watch’, Q News, April 2005. 58 Five of the seats no longer exist because of boundary changes so these are not included in the analysis.

BOX 1: Fielding DERR candidates, possibly to appeal to specific DERR groups62

59 H. Chapman, ‘Parties still undermine Muslim candidates’, Muslim News, 29 April 2005.

Ealing Central & Acton, (6% ‘Other’; sizeable Arab population), Labour PPC Bassam Mahfouz (Arab Christian) – 0.1% swing needed against the Conservatives; up against white female Conservative PPC (Mahfouz lost with -3.2% vote share)

60 There were only two exceptions to this and these candidates were in seats where although they were in second place, they needed swings of more than 10%.

Bethnal Green and Bow, (40.2% Asian, 39.6% Muslim), Labour PPC Rushanara Ali (Asian Muslim) – 1.7% swing needed against the Respect Party; up against Respect Party PPC Abjol Miah (Asian Muslim), Conservative PPC Zakir Khan (Asian Muslim) in 3rd place and Liberal Democrat PPC Ajmal Masroor (Asian Muslim) in 4th place (Ali won with +8.4% vote share and a 14.1% swing from Respect to Labour)

61 This paragraph has since been removed from her profile. Accessed: 5 November 2009.

Ilford North, (15.5% Asian; 10.3% Jewish; 6.4% Muslim), Labour PPC

62 All swing figures and population statistics have been taken from the UK Polling Report website and are based on notional results from the 2005 election, taking into account boundary revisions. This list is not exhaustive.

II.I ‘Asset’: Are DERR PPCs really more successful in seats with large DERR populations?

Skin-deep democracy

BOX 1 continued: Fielding DERR candidates, possibly to appeal to specific DERR groups Sonia Klein (Asian Muslim) – 2% swing needed against the Conservatives; up against Conservative Jewish MP (Klein lost with -5.4% vote share) Wolverhampton South West, (17.4% Asian; 8.2% Sikh), Conservative PPC Paul Uppal (Sikh) – 2.8% swing needed against Labour; Labour fielding white candidate (Uppal won with +2.6% vote share and a 3.5% swing from Labour to the Conservatives) Bradford West, (43% Asian; 38% Muslim; 1.8% Hindu), Conservative PPC Zahid Iqbal (Asian Muslim) - 3.55% swing needed against Labour, up against Labour MP Marsha Singh (Hindu) (Iqbal lost with -0.2% vote share) Leicester South, (31.4% Asian; 8.7% Hindu), Liberal Democrat PPC Parmjit Singh Gill (Asian Hindu) – 4.4% swing needed against Labour; up against white Labour MP (Singh Gill lost with -3.7% vote share) Tooting, (11.3% Asian; 10.4% black), Conservative PPC Mark Clarke (Afro-Caribbean heritage) – 6.1% swing needed against Labour; up against Labour MP Sadiq Khan (Asian Muslim) (Clarke lost but gained +8% vote share with a 2.6% swing from Labour to the Conservatives) Hammersmith, (13.4% black), Conservative PPC Shaun Bailey (Black) – 6.75% swing needed against Labour; Labour fielding white candidate (Bailey lost but gained +2.4% vote share and a 0.5% swing from Labour to the Conservatives) Pendle, (14.1% Asian; 13.4% Muslim), Liberal Democrat PPC Afzal Anwar (Asian Muslim) – in 3rd place, 6.95% swing needed against Labour; up against white Labour MP (Anwar lost with -3% vote share) Manchester Gorton, (19.2% Asian; 18.2% Muslim), Liberal Democrat PPC Qassim Afzal (Asian Muslim) – 8.2% swing needed against Labour; up against white Labour MP (Afzal lost with a -0.9% vote share) Harborough, (8.1% Asian), Liberal Democrat PPC Zuffar Haq (Asian Muslim) – 9% swing needed against Labour; up against white Conservative MP (Haq lost with -3.6% vote share) Luton South, (19.6% Asian; 17.4% Muslim), Liberal Democrat PPC Qurban Hussain (Asian Muslim) – currently in 3rd place, 10.15% swing needed against Labour; up against white Labour MP (Hussain lost but gained +0.1% vote share) Birmingham Perry Barr, (31.9% Asian; 14.8% Muslim; 12.7% Black), Liberal Democrat PPC Karen Hamilton (Black) – 10.25% swing needed against Labour MP Khalid Mahmood (Asian Muslim) (Hamilton lost with -4.1% vote share) Leyton and Wanstead, (17.9% Asian; 16.6% Muslim), Liberal Democrat PPC Farooq Qureshi (Asian Muslim) – 10.4% swing needed against

Skin-deep democracy

II.I ‘Asset’: Are DERR PPCs really more successful in seats with large DERR populations?

Labour; Labour fielding white candidate (Qureshi lost but gained +2.9% vote share) Brent North [see case study] (41.8% Asian; 27.8% Hindu; 48.1% born outside the UK), Conservative PPC Harshadbhai Patel (Asian Hindu, born in India) – 10.85% swing needed against Labour; up against white Labour MP (Patel lost but gained +2.2% vote share and a 2.3% swing from Labour to the Conservatives) Oldham West & Royton, (16.9% Asian; 15.6% Muslim), Conservative PPC Kamran Ghafoor (Asian Muslim) – 10.90% swing needed against Labour; up against white Labour MP (Ghafoor lost but gained +2.6% vote share) Walthamstow, (17.8% Asian; 18% Muslim), Liberal Democrat PPC Farid Ahmed (Asian Muslim) – 11.6% swing needed against Labour; Labour fielding white female candidate (Ahmed lost but gained +1.6% vote share) Oldham East & Saddleworth, (9% Asian; 8.5% Muslim), Conservative PPC Kashif Ali (Asian Muslim) – 12.1% swing needed against white Labour MP (Ali lost but gained +8.7% vote share) Birmingham Hodge Hill, (37.8% Asian; 35.8% Muslim), Liberal Democrat PPC Tariq Khan (Asian Muslim) – 12.6% swing needed against Labour; up against white Labour MP (Khan lost with -2.1% vote share) Ilford South, (19.6% Muslim), Liberal Democrat PPC Anood Al-Samerai (Arab Muslim) – 14.2% swing needed against Labour; up against white Labour MP (Al-Samerai lost with -3.6% vote share) Greenwich & Woolwich, (14.6% black), Liberal Democrat PPC Joseph Lee (Jamaican descent) – 16.3% swing needed; up against white Labour MP (Lee lost with -1.5% vote share) Camberwell and Peckham, (35.2% Black), Liberal Democrat PPC Columba Blango (black) – 20.9% swing needed against Labour; up against white Labour MP (Blango lost but gained +1.9% vote share and a 3% swing from Labour to the Liberal Democrats) In 2010, the Conservatives set their sights on gaining ground in the West Midlands. In one of the seats, Wolverhampton South West, Paul Uppal MP, a Sikh, was selected (albeit in an open caucus63). The seat has one of the largest Sikh populations in the country (8.2%) and with a swing of only 2.8% needed, the party may have been optimistic (Uppal did in fact win the seat).64 Another Sikh PPC, also for the Conservatives, Jasbir Singh Parmar, was chosen for the seat of Warley, in the West Midlands. This seat has an even larger Sikh population at 11%. Although he lost the election, Parmar gained +1.9% in vote share, resulting in a +1.9% swing to the party from Labour. The Conservatives also appear to have been actively trying to bridge the gap between the party and Bangladeshis by fielding PPCs of Bangladeshi origin in the seat with the largest concentration of Bangladeshis in the country – Bethnal Green and Bow. In 1997 the party fielded Kabir H. Choudhury, in 2001 and 2005 Shahagir

63 Uppal was selected to run in Wolverhamton South West in an open caucus - a process whereby the PPC is chosen by a ballot involving locally registered voters. Therefore, as many of these would not have been Conservative party members or even supporters, the selection of Uppal in this seat cannot necessarily be attributed to racialised attitudes within the local Conservative party. 64 Uppal achieved a swing of 3.5% from Labour to the Conservatives an increase in vote share of +2.6%.

II.I ‘Asset’: Are DERR PPCs really more successful in seats with large DERR populations?

“In two of the seats I applied for, where I failed to be selected, it would have been an advantage to do the brother thing with the Hindus and the African Asians.”

Skin-deep democracy

Bakth Faruk, and in 2010 Zakir Khan. However, the party is yet to pose a serious challenge to Labour or Respect (see Case Study One for a more detailed analysis). The Liberal Democrats also appear to be experimenting with this strategy with a large number of their DERR PPCs placed in ethnically diverse seats, taking on white (mostly Labour) MPs or candidates. It is worth remembering here that of the 45 DERR Liberal Democrats PPCs selected, only 12 were in seats with DERR populations lower than the national average. However, it is also the DERR PPCs themselves who may consider their particular background advantageous in swinging the vote, revealing their perceived agency in mobilizing groups who share their ethnic, racial or religious heritage, in the following quotations:

“I did some very careful research. I targeted seats with a higher BME count knowing that here I would probably be more successful. I spent a lot of time researching the makeup of the community.”

“It is a ‘plus point’ for me and the party that I have the non-British background I have – and that my wife is also non-British – because many people in my constituency have roots in our [respective] countries of origin.” (PPC, DERR) “In two of the seats I applied for, where I failed to be selected, it would have been an advantage to do the brother thing with the Hindus and the African Asians.” (PPC, East African Asian) “When I was shortlisted [for a predominantly white seat] I was the only ethnic minority candidate. I think my background was my unique selling point – I could also reach out to the Pakistani voters.” (Labour PPC, Asian) “People like myself can bridge that gap to Bengali communities. I talk to them about Conservative values and Bengali values and say ‘why can’t we work in parallel?’ The values match up but it’s how you translate it.” (Conservative councillor, Bangladeshi) A Sikh Labour Party member from another part of the country described how he had gone to help campaigning in Ealing Southall to restore Sikh constituents’ confidence in Labour. As a Sikh, he felt he was well placed to help Labour PPC Virendra Sharma, a Hindu. “The fact they [Sikh people] could see a turban – you didn’t have to say anything – the physical presence said it”. Similarly, Qassim Afzal, a Liberal Democrat PPC, claimed that he had boosted support for his party from voters of diverse backgrounds, predominantly Pakistanis, Kashmiris, Bangladeshis and other Muslim heritage voters and that his own “ethnicity, bilingual skills and understanding of common issues” played no small part in this. He mentioned several times during the course of his interview that in his experience running as a PPC in 2001 and 2005 he had seen a higher BME turn out in seats in Birmingham and Manchester. He also claimed that “research supports that this happens elsewhere too where BME candidates have stood”. Others reported similar feelings: “I did some very careful research. I targeted seats with a higher BME count knowing that here I would probably be more successful. I spent a lot of time researching the make-up of the community.” (PPC, Asian) “Asian candidates only seek support from their own communities – [as an Asian] I’m naturally going to get a swing towards me from the Asian community.” (PPC, Asian) It is difficult to determine to what extent these candidates’ ethnicity actually influenced voting behaviour, but it may also be a deliberate strategy on the part of some PPCs

Skin-deep democracy

II.II ‘Liability’: Are the electorate actually hostile to DERR PPCs?

to over-emphasize the utility of a PPC’s appeal to his or her ‘own’ group to make themselves more valuable to parties. There is evidently a responsibility on the part of both the parties and the candidates themselves not to over-emphasize allegiances with particular DERR groups on the basis of one aspect of a candidate’s identity. This threatens to call into question a candidate’s loyalties where successfully elected, not least because it raises expectations from amongst the group(s) concerning to whom the candidate is answerable. More seriously still, it reinforces the notion, through misplaced short-term thinking about electoral gains, that a DERR candidate is most useful to the party in a ‘DERR’ seat. II.II ‘Liability’: Are the electorate actually hostile to DERR PPCs? One of the justifications given for not selecting DERR candidates in certain areas is that a largely white electorate will reject them. As will be seen in this section, however, this assumption simply does not fit with the reality of what occurred in the 2010 election, in particular if the fortunes if the Conservatives’ DERR PPCs, many of whom ran in seats with a below national average DERR population, are examined. Regardless of whether such assumptions are valid or not, selection of candidates must not be influenced by them. Parties have a duty to not allow a candidate’s background to influence his/her chances of selection; pandering to perceived racism within the electorate has the same consequences as racism simple, denying opportunities to a DERR candidate because of his/her background.

“A few whites will say to me – ‘I used to vote for your party but I won’t now because you’re not white’. I’ve also had someone shout ‘wog’ across the street at me. A few people have left voicemails or e-mailed racist remarks. But I wouldn’t want to call it racism, rather prejudice. Every candidate experiences some form of prejudice.”

The Conservatives gained 100 seats in the 2010 election, three of which were won by DERR candidates from sitting Labour MPs.65 The Conservatives’ vote share nationally increased by +3.8%, a figure which conceals marked variations. The same is true of DERR Conservative candidates, who on average increased their vote share by +2.5%, a figure which also conceals marked variations:66 although DERR candidates Helen Grant and Sajid Javid suffered decreases (-3.8% and -7.3% respectively) whilst DERR candidates Rehman Chishti and Alok Sharma achieved above-average increases (+5.5% and +9.6% respectively). All four candidates were successful in constituencies with predominantly white populations. From these statistics, there is nothing to suggest that DERR PPCs were penalized by a white electorate, yet commentators continue to report on claimed voter resistance to non-white candidates. Operation Black Vote states: ‘[i]n most areas outside of the big cities there still is a question mark as to whether society is ready to accept a Black [DERR] candidate. Clearly, candidates have to have a specialness to compensate any negativity’.67 Similarly, a white party member claimed that people in general vote for what is familiar to them: “They [whites] won’t tend to vote for a BME candidate if they seem too exotic. I am surprised at the selection of Priti Patel in Witham, a [safe] seat with a white majority and fairly rural.” This concern over the selection of Priti Patel proved unfounded – she won her seat in May 2010. Similarly, when Parmjit Dhanda was selected as Labour’s candidate for the Labour-held predominantly white seat of Gloucester in 2001, Dhanda reports that ‘[n]o one was more surprised by this than my local newspaper who commented after my selection that “Labour can kiss goodbye to this seat ... many of the voters have yet to reach the advanced state of consciousness to accept a foreigner as their local MP”’.68 Dhanda went on to get elected, further demonstrating that such assumptions about electoral bias were incorrect. Indeed, alleged ‘suspicions’ of the party losing

65 Rehman Chishti, Paul Uppal and Alok Sharma. 66 Alok Sharma, Rehman Chishti, Paul Uppal, Kwasi Kwarteng, Sam Gyimah, Sajid Javid, Nadhim, Zahawi, Helen Grant and Priti Patel. 67 House of Commons, ‘Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation)’, Session 2008–09, Volume II, Written evidence, House of Commons, 27 May 2009, p. 3 (henceforth ‘Speaker’s Conference, Written Evidence’) 68 P. Dhanda, (2010), ‘Parmjit Dhanda, Labour’s candidate in Gloucester’, Progressive Online.

Skin-deep democracy

II.II ‘Liability’: Are the electorate actually hostile to DERR PPCs?

“In the suburbs, support for my party is high but this area will accept me as an MP even though I’m BME because the electorate have more contact with ethnic minorities; they’re more trusting. I will probably lose [votes] in the rural area because of the colour of my skin. I don’t see this as overt racism but more that they’ll look at me and think, ‘he’s not one of us.’”

“I soon realized that the people of the constituency were non-prejudicial and unconcerned with the colour of my skin. You don’t have to look like the constituents you represent.”

electoral support from a prejudiced white electorate can easily be manipulated by party members to achieve their own personal goals, possibly even by excluding DERR individuals from the political process. At this point, it is worth noting that a 2007 ruling by the Law Lords found that it was unacceptable to avoid selecting a candidate simply on the basis that the electorate were thought to prefer somebody of a different background. The Law Lords ruling condemns as unacceptable any tactics which involve giving preferential treatment to candidates of a certain background on the grounds that the electorate would prefer them,69 but what evidence is there that the white electorate is actually hostile to DERR candidates representing them? Ahead of the 2010 election, some PPCs had encountered a few hostile constituents:70 “A few whites will say to me – ‘I used to vote for your party but I won’t now because you’re not white’. I’ve also had someone shout ‘wog’ across the street at me. A few people have left voicemails or e-mailed racist remarks. But I wouldn’t want to call it racism, rather prejudice. Every candidate experiences some form of prejudice.” (PPC, Asian Muslim) “When I knock on doors in the constituency where I’m campaigning, some white middle class people say to me ‘we want our country back’ [from the foreigners].” (PPC, Asian) “I have had some [racial] harassment via e-mail – and I’m sure there’s more to come. But racism is not a big deal – I don’t want to blow it out of proportion.” (PPC, Asian) Others relayed similar experiences of dealing with prejudice during campaigning: “You have to be as English as the English to have cross-over appeal. A strong accent is off-putting for white voters, conjures up emotional negativity and it turns me off if you can’t understand due to somebody’s accent.” (PPC, DERR) “I have noticed the effect my ‘different name’ can have on voters – traditional Tories or Labourites, who want ‘English names’. When people don’t know my name and are talking to me on the phone, they sometimes say racist things about immigration, etc, assuming I am white British or if they know my name, they preface their comments with, ‘I’m not racist but...’ or ‘I have friends who are black but...’” (PPC, DERR) Whilst PPCs reporting racial or religious harassment from members of their constituencies were few in number, it is likely that PPCs would want to downplay any hostility from their constituents for fear of their party questioning their ‘electability’. One Asian PPC in a constituency which encompasses a large rural area but also a suburb of a large, diverse city, felt he had a much better chance in the latter:

69 Times Online, ‘Jurisdiction to hear race discrimination claims’, Times, 27 November 2007. 70 See Case Study Three for how the British National Party seeks to manipulate such hostilities.

Skin-deep democracy

II.III Party racism and sexism persists

electorate. During his time applying for seats, he explained that: “if they [the Conservative party] came up with a seat in some remote area where they probably haven’t seen a brown man in their life it probably wouldn’t suit me because I’d be totally out of place.” Moreover, to avoid self-segregation, parties – both centrally and at local level – must make a concerted effort to allay any fears candidates have about applying and running for seats in predominantly white areas. One Asian PPC for a predominantly white area described how he realised he had been mistaken to be apprehensive about applying for a white-majority constituency in the North-West: “I soon realized that the people of the constituency were non-prejudicial and unconcerned with the colour of my skin. You don’t have to look like the constituents you represent.”

“Most party members see my ethnicity positively or see beyond it, but there is a small minority who, whilst not being racist to my face, I notice their assumptions about me because of my ethnicity and suspect with the secrecy of ballots, they may not vote for me because of my colour/ background.”

Not only has it been seen that the tactic of placing candidates in specific areas according to their background is not necessarily successful, but the Law Lords found such behaviour unacceptable. The parties should ensure that this practise does not recur in any future elections. II.III Party racism and sexism persists Racist and sexist views may well be held by party members of all backgrounds, but they should always be seen as unacceptable. In particular, there is a risk that DERR candidates, who could be successful at the ballot box, are being denied that opportunity by internal party racism. In IPPR’s research of the experiences of 34 candidates who sought selection by the three main parties for the 2001 election, the authors concluded that most interviewees found the selection process ‘fair and equitable’. They also found, however, that the ‘substantial obstacles’ that exist ‘arise not from the procedures themselves but from the expectations, attitudes and culture of local parties’.71 Two elections later, in 2010, a DERR party member explained that he “can’t remember experiencing any overt racism” whilst canvassing in white areas and thinks the “electorate are much more colour-blind than party hacks”. Others reported similar suspicions about their race or ethnicity being more of an issue with local party members than on the doorstep when canvassing. “Most party members see my ethnicity positively or see beyond it, but there is a small minority who, whilst not being racist to my face, I notice their assumptions about me because of my ethnicity and suspect with the secrecy of ballots, they may not vote for me because of my colour/background.” (Labour PPC, DERR) “It has been far more difficult for me, than my white friends, to get through the ‘paper sift’ when applying for a seat. My white friends have had far more interviews than me.” (Conservative PPC, Asian) “I was selected as a Conservative PPC in a predominantly white seat. The Chairman [of the LCA] took me aside and said that they [the party] wanted me to stand down because of my gender and my ethnicity.’” (former Conservative PPC, female) “The selection meeting [for a predominantly white seat] was an absolutely horrific experience. Those at the selection were white, middle class, and sneering. At another selection meeting for a seat with similar demographics, the experience

71 R. Ali, C. O’Cinneide, 2002, p. 42.

Skin-deep democracy

II.III Party racism and sexism persists

“A Conservative councillor in my local area said to me ‘you’ve come a long way my dear – isn’t it wonderful you’ve been elected [as councillor]? People like you clean toilets in Heathrow’. The LCA officers know about this man and his views – he’s a known bully – but they don’t understand why I’m being so sensitive about it. They don’t understand because it’s not been directed at them.”

“They are constantly humiliating me. It does hurt me. I do sit in my corner sometimes and cry but I will never show them. Besides, people don’t like whingers.”

72 Speaker’s Conference, written evidence, p. 103. 73 S. Sanghera, ‘‘I’m Labour, but I want the Conservative candidate Paul Uppal to win’, Times, 5 May 2010. 74 Speaker’s Conference, written evidence, p. 147.

was similar. I just felt like I was not taken seriously as a candidate.” (Conservative candidate, Asian) “A Conservative councillor in my local area said to me ‘you’ve come a long way my dear – isn’t it wonderful you’ve been elected [as councillor]? People like you clean toilets in Heathrow’. The LCA officers know about this man and his views – he’s a known bully – but they don’t understand why I’m being so sensitive about it. They don’t understand because it’s not been directed at them.” (Conservative candidate, DERR) Similarly, the NMWAG found in their research with a number of DERR individuals who have sought public office that ‘[e]ven when selected, they [DERR candidates] often do not have the required support of their party’.72 Reflecting on Conservative MP Paul Uppal’s election in Wolverhampton South West in May 2010, The Times reported on how Conservative peer Baroness Verma tried to get elected in the same seat in 2005. Losing to Labour’s Rob Marris ‘by just 3,000 votes, she did so amid rumours, according to the BBC, “that old guard traditionalists in the party had simply not turned out for her during the campaign”’.73 More recently, a female PPC talked about her “life sentence” as a PPC for more than two years with the Labour Party, where those who backed another candidate ensured that the Constituency Labour Party (CLP) did not lift a finger to support her; its executive being dominated by those who did not support her candidature. “They’ve not produced any leaflets for me, when they are one of the richest CLPs in the country, or visited a single house with me during my campaigning. There are five or six members who are real bullies. At general committee meetings they bully me. They shout at me, have questioned me about my passport and accused me of ‘constantly doing things for ethnics’ because I was invited to speak to the ethnic minority group in the local council. I am not allowed to mention in public that I am a Muslim because they think that nobody would vote for me. They’ve continually tried to find dirt on me. They leak things to the Tories. Old Labour members will say to the CLP ‘Tory councillors are saying they’ve got things on her and will use them against us during the election’ but they’re crafty because this isn’t true. They are constantly humiliating me. It does hurt me. I do sit in my corner sometimes and cry but I will never show them. Besides, people don’t like whingers.” There are also reported cases of underhand tactics being employed by local party branches to exclude candidates from the selection process whom local party members did not support. One Asian PPC reported how he was shortlisted for a seat alongside a female candidate whom the party did not want, so they set a date for the selection that she could not make. “That’s politics”, was all the interviewee said. BAME Labour detailed these underhand tactics allegedly employed by local party branches in its submission to the Speaker’s Conference (2009). ‘Stereotype [sic] in the selection procedure can manifest itself by locals branches not readily accepting a BAME candidature—for example losing application forms, holding meetings in culturally insensitive or inappropriate buildings, advertising the meeting at a particular time and then shifting the time sometimes even the venue!’74 Whilst such racist attitudes undoubtedly deny some DERR party members equal opportunities to become involved in political life, DERR individuals risk being accused of ‘crying racism’ if they speak out, possible endangering future opportunities to be selected as a candidate. Complainants may also be dismissed as being “quite

Skin-deep democracy

II.IV Inter- and intra-DERR group pressures on candidates

sensitive”, as one senior Conservative MP said of Dawn Butler MP. “They [DERR individuals] think that any kind of reprimand from anyone is racially motivated”.75 Parties must develop a centrally-managed mechanism whereby candidates can report discriminatory treatment in confidence, without fear of repercussion from local party branches. One black Labour candidate explained the difficulties in labelling harassment as ‘racism’ because of the risk of being accused of “play[ing] the race card”.

“Pakistani Muslims won’t vote for a Hindu. In that respect I am the wrong person for this constituency [with a large Pakistani Muslim population].”

“I didn’t make any formal complaints as I would have looked like a sore loser, a whiner. And I have to work with these people.” (Labour candidate, black) In the main, it is political parties that select candidates standing for election and as such it is their responsibility to ensure that candidates are willing and able to represent all constituents, in all their diversity. There is no place for prejudiced or racist party members in British politics. So long as parties’ members control the selection process, the party leadership must make it their absolute priority to ensure that their membership, which is overseen centrally, is free of such intolerable views and that actions will be taken against racism wherever it occurs. II.IV Inter- and intra-DERR group pressures on candidates One of the factors that appears to negatively influence selection of DERR candidates in certain areas is the perception (or reality) of negative attitudes towards him/her from individuals of other, or even the same, DERR background. This could be in the form of (perceived and actual) prejudice among DERR individuals against individuals of other DERR backgrounds, or conservative attitudes amongst DERR individuals of a certain background specifically directed against women who share their background. Just as it is unacceptable for a party to pander to (perceived and actual) racism within a largely white electorate, it is unacceptable for a party to pander to similar sentiments among DERR constituents. It is incumbent on the parties, as with all organisations, to reject racism and intolerance, and to select a candidate according to ability, not race, religion or otherwise, even if the party fears that its electoral chances will be harmed. One Labour MP said of a town in Yorkshire, that where Labour had shortlisted a very strong black candidate ahead of the 2010 election, “the local party knew that they couldn’t get an Asian vote for a black person” – an Asian candidate was selected. The following quotes show the possible problems in fielding DERR candidates in diverse areas, from the point of view of DERR candidates and party members. “There was racism from amongst the Bangladeshi membership because of my East African Asian heritage.” “The Asian community is very racist. Asians look down on blacks. Asians don’t represent interests of black people.” (PPC, Asian) “Pakistani Muslims won’t vote for a Hindu. In that respect I am the wrong person for this constituency [with a large Pakistani Muslim population].” (PPC, Asian Hindu) “Muslims are more likely to vote for Sikhs than Hindus because of India-Pakistan problems and the same is true of Hindus voting for Sikhs over Muslims.” (PPC, Asian) “While a Muslim would naturally like to vote for a Muslim, next in the pecking

75 Butler alleges that, in 2008, Conservative MP David Heathcote-Amory challenged her when she tried to go onto the members’ terrace at Westminster. She alleges that after she confirmed that she was an MP, he turned to his colleague and said “They’re letting anybody in nowadays”. A. Hill, J. Revill, ‘Racism rife in Commons, says MP’, Observer, 13 April 2008.

Skin-deep democracy

II.IV Inter- and intra-DERR group pressures on candidates

order would be someone from one of the other Abrahamic faiths. If you’re an atheist you shouldn’t shout about it to Muslims.” (Conservative party member, Muslim) “No white person has asked me my religion whereas quite a few Muslims have.” (PPC, Hindu) Whilst there is ample evidence that such views within the electorate do not significantly damage a candidate’s chances of being elected in mixed constituencies,76 the following examples demonstrate that perceptions of a prejudiced electorate strongly influences party members, impacting on DERR candidates’ chances in selection contests. One Bangladeshi candidate who applied for a Labour parliamentary candidate selection in a London constituency with a sizeable Bangladeshi population, was told by party members that “I was from the wrong part of London and the wrong part of Bangladesh” for that particular seat, so had minimal chance of being selected by the party membership, many of whom were Bangladeshi. In another example, a Muslim candidate was told by a Labour MP not to bother applying for the Ealing Southall byelection because “a Muslim candidate would not go down well in that area.” Women in particular may suffer a disproportionately high level of resistance amongst some more conservative individuals of a DERR background, where it is felt that a woman should not run for public office, particularly in certain areas. According to the NMWAG, ‘Muslim women, in particular, face barriers within their own community of sexual discrimination and cultural prejudice’.77 A Labour Party member described local political life for Asian women in Bradford: “Asian women who hold public appointments (be it as a Board member or councillor) are threatened by male colleagues who say they’ll report back to their families that the women have been behaving inappropriately.” The most recent figures on this are from 2006 and show that DERR women account for only 15% of councillors of DERR background, compared with white women who constitute 30% of all white councillors.78

Councillors

5321 76 Parmjit Singh Gill (Leicester South), Marsha Singh (Bradford West), Keith Vaz (Leicester East), Sadiq Khan (Tooting), Virendra Sharma (Ealing Southall), Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham Perry Barr) and Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington), to name a few.

White male (68.0%) White female (29.2%)

513

438 Asian male (2.4%)

12379

Asian female (0.4%)

77 Speaker’s Conference, written evidence, p. 103. 78 0.8% did not respond. University of Manchester (2007), ‘Improving the Representativeness of Councillors’, December 2007, p. 41.

Salma Yaqoob, Respect Party PPC for Birmingham Hall Green, has openly said that she experienced pressure from some people of an Asian background not to get involved in politics:

Skin-deep democracy

II.IV Inter- and intra-DERR group pressures on candidates

“There were people saying it wasn’t the job of a woman to be doing this [standing to be a councillor]”.79 Another example comes from Lancashire. In July 2008, it was reported that Muslim Councillor Hasina Khan had been subjected to a three-year hate campaign from people of a DERR background which began when she was selected to be Labour’s candidate in the local election. She explained that “[i]t is just a few members of the community who think I should be at home with a veil over my face” but it has affected her ability to visit some streets on her ward80 (see Case Study One for more examples). Most recently, Asian Muslim female PPCs running in the 2010 election complained of the restrictive views held by some Muslim men.

“The seat is profiled for a white middle class male in his late 30s or early 40s. This is [in part] because the large Muslim population there will only deal with a white male.”

“Asian community members sometimes ask my husband why he’s not standing. I had a meeting with influential and respected community elders but my husband had to make the calls and arrange it. I asked that the elders’ wives come too but they were hesitant. I doubt they’ll come although it would be good to know their views.” (PPC, Asian Muslim female) “With more socially conservative men I find that not wearing a hijab is an initial barrier to having a dialogue with me. Of course if they’re going to look down on me then they’re not going to support me.” (PPC, Asian Muslim female) “You need to have a crocodile [tough] skin. Muslim girls may not want to face the criticism they’ll get.” (former Conservative PPC, Muslim male) Worryingly, there is evidence that parties are pandering to this, resulting in certain seats and certain party positions being considered off-limits to DERR women. One female Conservative candidate who was interested in a seat with a Muslim population three times the national average reported being told by an MP (from the same party) that: “the seat is profiled for a white middle class male in his late 30s or early 40s. This is [in part] because the large Muslim population there will only deal with a white male [authors’ emphasis].” (candidate, DERR female) Similarly, a Labour Party member explained how conservative views of women amongst individuals of certain backgrounds would disadvantage women on DERR shortlists, were they to be used: “BME women get the worst treatment from BME men. This is mostly the case for Asian Muslims, but also Sikhs – less so for Asian Hindus. All- or majority-BME shortlists would disadvantage BME women as the BME men would get selected, not the women, so BME women would be better off on all-women shortlists.” (Labour Party member, Asian female) Where the local party membership believes such prejudices may undermine a candidate’s chances of getting elected, it may not select a DERR for fear that electoral support for the party would suffer as a result. One PPC lamented the limitations imposed on her by her party because of the conservative views of some Muslim men, which had repercussions for her involvement in party initiatives aimed at Muslims. It was not clear, however, whether any proof of such resistance on the part of “some” Muslim men was forthcoming. In short, some DERR politicians, particularly Muslim women, are finding that their opportunities are being unfairly limited by unproven assumptions about how the electorate will react to them.

79 J. Walker, ‘Postal ballot means Asian women miss out on vote, says Salma Yaqoob’, Birmingham Post, 20 May 2008. 80 M. Leroux, ‘Muslim councillor Hasina Khan: I will not let male bigots win’, Times, 3 July 2008.

Skin-deep democracy

III Targeting the ‘bloc vote’ at the expense of social cohesion

“The biradari pre-select candidates – for whichever party, since biradari membership trumps party affiliation.”

Key points Typecasting DERR candidates for DERR seats is racist and it limits opportunities. The Law Lords found such tactics ‘unacceptable’ in 2007. Using DERR candidates as ‘bridges’ undermines their legitimacy as impartial representatives of the whole community. Racist views amongst party members can influence selections at local level and therefore constitutes one of the main barriers to equal treatment of DERR candidates. DERR candidates require a confidential complaints procedure for reporting discrimination and harassment. Parties must lead on challenging racist and sexist views where they exist within the electorate and support candidates where they are subject to pressure and harassment.

III Targeting the ‘bloc vote’ at the expense of social cohesion III.I Manipulating ‘bloc votes’ by empowering traditional clan structures This section will discuss the ways in which parties have taken electoral shortcuts to encourage ‘bloc votes’ of support to develop along racial, religious or ethnic lines through enlisting the support of so-called ‘community representatives’ and traditional South Asian clan structures (also known as biradari networks). The fear is that candidates who have sought endorsement from traditional South Asian clan systems will become accountable to the clan rather than to the electorate as a whole. Regardless of this, ‘community leadership’ structures are used by some politicians in the hope that they offer potential short cuts to victory. In 2003 it was reported that former MP Shahid Malik (prior to his election as MP in 2005 and at that time a member of Labour’s National Executive Committee), feared that some ‘political candidates are being blocked from going for office because of a hidden clan system’. He went on to say that other parties had also colluded with ‘first generation British Pakistanis’. More recently, in the 2010 election, according to the Associated Press of Pakistan, Malik’s election agent claimed that an independent (South Asian background) candidate robbed Malik of victory by mobilizing voters behind him along biradari lines, thereby taking votes from Malik and enabling Conservative Simon Reevell to win his seat.81 81 Shahid Malik lost to Conservative Simon Reevell by 1,526 votes, with a swing of 5.9% from Labour to the Conservatives. Boundary revisions disadvantaged Labour but only by a swing of 0.6% with the Conservatives still needing a 5.4% swing to win. Voter turnout increased by more than 6%. Associated Press of Pakistan, ‘Boundary changes cause of Shahid Malik’s defeat in UK polls’, Associated Press of Pakistan, 10 May 2010.

The implications for candidate selection are summed up by the former MP of a seat with a sizeable Asian population: “The biradari pre-select candidates – for whichever party, since biradari membership trumps party affiliation.” (former MP) Ahead of the 2010 election, one Asian PPC felt that her LCA did not understand the local demographics of her constituency, in particular the South Asians, and undoubtedly saw this as a window of opportunity – “[t]he local [Conservative] associations in the area are quite remote from minorities and that has to change”. When asked if she might feel beholden to either her backer or segments of the local Asian population, were they to vote for her, she replied:

Skin-deep democracy

III.I Manipulating ‘bloc votes’ by empowering traditional clan structures

“I could be, but no more beholden than any other person or organization that backs you. If the biradari networks help me to get elected, then they deserve my attention if I win, like all constituents irrespective of how they voted.” Whilst she considers her family to be “stand alone”, and not as subject to biradari pressures as those more embedded in such networks, this betrays a potential naivety about the responsibilities involved when campaigning to secure a seat. One former MP in a seat with a sizeable Asian population, for example, explained how “people come up to me and offer many hundreds of votes but I don’t do business like that. They will always want something in return”. One former MP claimed that individuals offering ‘bloc votes’ have corrupted elected representatives. “Muslims have never made a determined effort to gain influence in Labour as they do it through mosques and elders. Politicians are wise to this – I know of one councillor who does deals, calling eight or nine men before an election and asking them ‘who are you going to vote for and can I help you out with anything?’” However, the interviewees approached for this report were divided as to whether biradari and other traditional ‘clan’ structures are actually that relevant to contemporary British politics. One Asian PPC explained that “it is the older politicians who use the biradari system more than the younger politicians”, whilst another explained that it simply is not as potent a force as some suggest. “The biradari system in the UK is so broken up. Muslim MPs talk about ‘bloc votes’ but it’s nonsense, they don’t exist. There are 50-60 politically active elders and when each claims they can guarantee 200 votes or whatever it is, they are talking about the same group of votes. The mistake that is made is that each elder is taken to be referring to different votes so very quickly the number suddenly rises to 2,000. Asians will big up their support base. They tell a lot of fibs and nonAsians believe them. I don’t think the parties are wise to this.” There appears to be no consensus on the extent to which ‘community leaders’ and elders influence votes within their respective spheres of influence. As is true for wider society, a number of factors are at work. Whilst one Asian PPC claimed that “for Asians it is not always an individual choice to vote, it is a collective family one”, another felt that this was not necessarily the case: “Young Asian Muslims have split personalities – they say yes to their fathers and elders but then do their own thing. If there is ‘oppression’ or encouraged voting, it is amongst the women. A lot of them follow the lead of their father, husband or sons, but also other women. I know a woman who organized for 60-70 women to go down to the polling station in 2005 (because her husband was running as a candidate). These informal women’s ‘clubs’ appear ahead of polling day and encourage women to vote.” Where parties exploit ‘community leadership’ structures to target specific groups within society, DERR party members may see the advantages of playing the same game, presenting themselves as ‘representatives’ of individuals who share their background. This runs the very real risk of self-styled gate-keepers selling themselves to the highest bidder on the basis of their connections in the local area. This not only serves to damage party trust in DERR candidates’ loyalty to the party, but also engenders rivalry and suspicion amongst DERR party members. One Muslim PPC found her local party branch to be very welcoming and encouraging, with the exception of two Muslim councillors.

“Muslims have never made a determined effort to gain influence in Labour as they do it through mosques and elders. Politicians are wise to this – I know of one councillor who does deals, calling eight or nine men before an election and asking them ‘who are you going to vote for and can I help you out with anything?’”

III.II Manipulating ‘bloc votes’ by using controversial and divisive issues

Skin-deep democracy

“They saw me as a threat – especially as a woman. They felt they had a role in the party; as access points to the Muslim communities. Where Muslims are a minority in the membership, as they are, they feel indispensable.” The PPC did not, however, feel that Muslim constituents recognized these two councillors as ‘Muslim’ voices for the party. The party, on the other hand, may well have been none the wiser. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, one senior party official explained that: “The Liberal Democrats have no data on the swing of votes in relation to specific candidates in specific areas to be ‘justifying’ their choice of candidates for certain areas. It is a few activists and candidates who inform the party about voting patterns – who is likely to vote for them – and they reinforce the idea that you need a Muslim candidate to capture Muslim votes.” In short, parties must both challenge party members who present themselves as representatives who claim to speak on behalf of ‘their groups’, and resist the temptation to select a candidate who comes with a supposed pre-agreed voter support. By doing otherwise, parties risk undermining the quality, credibility and the impartiality of their politicians, compromising policy-making and undermining the very heart of the democratic process. Doing deals with ‘community leaders’ for the purposes of electoral shortcuts is not just a practice of dubious morality, but it also empowers clan hierarchies and undermines individual autonomy creating a democratic deficit whcih potentially excludes young and female members of these groups. Moreover, such practices risk alienating non-Asian voters as well as members of other ‘clans’ and as such are high-risk strategies, even in the short-term. III.II Manipulating ‘bloc votes’ by using controversial and divisive issues Another tactic that parties have also tried to create such ‘bloc votes’ is by manipulating contentious and divisive issues, rather than engaging with the whole community on issues which are important to all of them. This can potentially exacerbate existing tensions and ruptures in society. Historically, one of the most egregious examples of this occurred in 1964 in Smethwick, where there was a controversial campaign in support of the Conservatives saying ‘if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour’.82 But how far have we come since then?

82 C. Goodwin, ‘If you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour’, New African, October 2004. 83 Runnymede Trust (2004), ‘Realising the Vision: Progress and Further Challenges. The Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (2000) Revisited in 2004’. 84 Commission for Racial Equality (2001), ‘Race for Election: Race Relations for Political Campaigners’. 85 S. Saggar, (2001), ‘The Race Card, Again’, Parliamentary Affairs, 54, 4, pp. 759-774.

Back in 2001, the Commission for Racial Equality (now the Equalities and Human Rights Commission) introduced a compact setting out good practice in political campaigning for the general election of 2001, entitled ‘Race for Election. Race relations for political campaigners’. All five main UK political parties signed the compact to ‘represent the interests of all constituents regardless of race, sex, colour, religion or any other discriminating factor, and promote good race relations’.83 This meant a commitment to abstain from exploiting ethnic, religious and racial stereotypes for political gain – ‘[t]he right to free political expression must not be abused in the competition for popular votes by causing or exploiting prejudice and discrimination on grounds of race or nationality’ and ‘[e]lected politicians must represent everyone, not pitch one group against another for short-term political or personal gain’.84 Although only a small number of Conservative MPs declined to sign the compact,85 how enforceable these guidelines are, and how a breach of them should be identified, remained highly problematic. Parties continue to pander to sections of society on the basis of potentially and

Skin-deep democracy

III.II Manipulating ‘bloc votes’ by using controversial and divisive issues

actually divisive issues in order to manipulate votes along racial, religious or ethnic lines, even if outright racism is avoided. In its final report (2010), the Speaker’s Conference described some of the unacceptable and negative personal campaigning which occurs. ‘On occasions [sic] activists and candidates may mount personal attacks on specific candidates by commenting on, for example, their family life, their racial background, their sexual orientation or their state of health [authors’ emphasis]’.86 Whilst this may well be under-reported by PPCs for fear of being labelled ‘trouble makers’, the report does not mention the unacceptable comments that moderators allow to be posted on party website blogs about party-approved candidates. One black Labour DERR candidate said: “On the [Labour] party website’s discussion board there were comments slagging me off. They said I was foul-mouthed, that my family are scum, that I had been playing the race card, and generally used my working class roots against me.” Parties have also undermined the opposition by personally attacking candidates in order to turn sections of society against them – the following are examples of candidates exploiting religiously conservative elements amongst British Muslims. Salma Yaqoob, standing in Birmingham’s local election in May 2006, claimed: ‘[r]epresentatives of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats pandered to conservative attitudes within the Muslim community about the position of women. At election meetings and polling booths, Lib Dem and Labour activists urged Muslim men not to vote for a woman because it was “un-Islamic”. The fact that I had not adopted my husband’s surname was evidence of me being insufficiently subservient. Instead of serious engagement with the issues, smears about my commitment to my family as a mother, daughter and wife abounded.’87 In a similar vein, Shabana Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Ladywood, claimed that in the days before the election, ‘some individuals “decided to spread lies about me in order to defame my character as a Muslim woman [authors’ emphasis]”’.88 Also seeking to deter Muslim voters, days before the 6th May 2010 election the website ‘Conservative Home’ alleged that the (white) Labour PPC in Hammersmith had labelled the constituency’s Conservative PPC Shaun Bailey as ‘anti-Muslim’ in campaign leaflets, with spurious ‘evidence’.89 The seat has a Muslim population of more than 8% and the Conservatives needed a swing of only 6.75% against Labour. One current PPC talked about similar experiences during other election campaigns – both national and local. “In a local by-election my party put forward an East African Asian candidate and in response Labour hit him hard for being an East African Asian. They put out flyers saying the party he stood for planned to ban the hijab, which isn’t true. Labour’s candidate was Hindu but they tried to pass him off as a Muslim – they shortened his name so it sounded Muslim and they photographed him outside a mosque.” (PPC, Asian) Just as insidious is the practice of party representatives misusing ‘home country’ politics to attempt mobilization of groups along pre-existing fractures within society. One Asian PPC felt that this was where some candidates got it wrong. “I see traffic, anti-social behaviour, education, refuse collections, as people’s concerns, not Kashmir, so I focus on issues that affect the majority of the public rather than small issues. This is an area where Asian candidates get it wrong

86 Speaker’s Conference Final Report, p. 80. 87 S. Yaqoob, ‘The women won it’, Guardian, 13 May 2006. 88 H. Chapman, A.J. Versi, ‘Muslim MPs double in number after UK elections—Muslim women and Muslim Tories elected for the first time’, Muslim News, 28 May 2010. 89 H. Phibbs, ‘Labour getting desperate in Hammersmith’, Conservative Home, 3 May 2010.

III.II Manipulating ‘bloc votes’ by using controversial and divisive issues

Skin-deep democracy

and fall down because they centre around one issue. This may work in some areas where there’s less education, but not where BME groups are more broadthinking.” One DERR PPC felt that a white MP, in a constituency with one of the largest Muslim populations in the country, “spends more time in Kashmir than his own constituency. He gets his support from the Muslim councilors who have been in post for a considerable number of years”. Over-dependency on electoral support which is tied up with contentious issues such as Kashmir is highly divisive. In particular, it risks compromising the MP’s commitment to the needs of the constituency as a whole. Expectations between MPs and groups in diverse constituencies should be managed very carefully, particularly where country-of-origin conflicts can spill over and inflame inter-ethnic and inter-religious tensions in the UK. Moreover, it is a shortterm support-winning strategy that will increasingly fail to bear fruit as the older generation dies out. “He [a white MP] was part of the old school approach of speaking to community leaders, which led him to speak to the older generation who were concerned with racism and Kashmir because they arrived thinking that they would be going back to South Asia. But this does not match the concerns of the younger generation. Though it is not fair to say that [he] hasn’t grasped the nuances of the generational disconnect when Asians themselves haven’t.” (PPC, Asian Labour) “The first generation, and to a certain extent second generation, have a real focus on Indian Sub-continent politics. They are more likely to know the names of Indian politicians than British politicians. There is real tension between first/ second generations and third/fourth generations with the latter concerned with issues related to life in the UK. The support given to me by one Chief Minister in India is a big deal to the first generation, less so to others.” (MP) Not only does over-dependency on winning votes through ‘blocs’ tied up with controversial issues (often linked to race or religion) run the risk of exacerbating tensions between individuals of different backgrounds, but it undermines the fundamental principle that representation is of all people within society, not just subsets of it. Furthermore, there is a risk that MPs who have campaigned in this way might not risk criticizing certain culturally- or religiously-sensitive issues and practices specific to particular ethnic or faith groups for fear of losing electoral support en masse from the group concerned.

Key points Party engagement with the electorate must be on the basis of a ‘common good’ politics, not via ‘community leadership’ structures Self-styled ‘community gatekeepers’ within the party membership must be challenged Parties must demonstrate a commitment to enforcing the Code of Conduct on responsible political campaigning

Skin-deep democracy

IV Pigeon-holing: Limiting DERR politicians to talking about so-called ‘DERR issues’

IV Pigeon-holing: Limiting DERR politicians to talking about so-called ‘DERR issues’ This section will discuss the need for parties to abandon the practice of treating DERR candidates first and foremost on the basis of their ethnicity, race or faith. Given that an individual’s views, experiences, concerns and interests cut across religious, racial and ethnic divides, candidates’ interests, expertise and experience cannot be assumed on the basis of a narrow view of their identities – be it according to faith, ethnicity, gender or anything else. The risk is that a black candidate, for example, may come to be seen as a better representative of ‘black groups’ than his/her non-black counterparts.

“If I was just a race-based politician, I wouldn’t get anywhere. I don’t sell myself [as a black woman], I sell the party and my experience, making it applicable to the wider community.”

Ahead of the 2010 election some PPCs described their perception of themselves as being better able to ‘represent’ constituents whose DERR background they shared. “I was selected for a constituency in 2005 with a sizeable Mirpuri Muslim population. They [the Mirpuris] were thrilled to have an ethnic candidate who they felt understood their issues coming from a traditional Indian family – deferring to elders, knowing your place, gendered family roles and so on.” (former PPC, Asian) “An MP from the same background [as his/her constituents] will know that community better and there is no substitute for empathy so they will be better at championing [the constituents’] issues. For example, a Bangladeshi MP in an area with a large Bangladeshi population [authors’ emphasis].” (PPC, DERR) Knowledge of, and links with, particular DERR groups must not be automatically equated with a willingness to champion ‘their’ concerns. This is clarified nicely by Shabana Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Ladywood, who explained that, given her DERR background, she brings a “slightly different perspective on some issues, [...] particularly those ones that affect the community I have come from”.90 Whilst sharing specific knowledge and insights of a cross-section of British society is crucial for more robust policy-making, the drive to champion this specific perspective should not, however, send the message that a white MP is less willing and/or able to (nor that a DERR MP must) do likewise. Khalid Mahmood MP has also shown similar concerns, explaining how: “initially, I was often described on BBC WM91 as ‘the Muslim MP for Perry Bar’, but I would stop and correct them, saying I was ‘the Labour MP for Perry Bar, who is Muslim.’ If I hadn’t stopped them, I think I would have been seen to be a Muslim MP, not a Labour MP.” More recently, Farid Ahmed, the Liberal Democrats’ Asian Muslim PPC for Walthamstow, was at pains to explain in a BBC interview that whilst some may see him as “just” a DERR candidate, “if you look at all of our campaign literature, our main aim is to address every single community”.92 There are numerous other examples of PPCs keen to demonstrate their commitment to the policies of the party they represent, not just race-based politics. “If I was just a race-based politician, I wouldn’t get anywhere. I don’t sell myself [as a black woman], I sell the party and my experience, making it applicable to the wider community [authors’ emphasis].” (Conservative councillor, black female)

90 BBC, ‘How many ethnic minority MPs in the 2010 Parliament?’, BBC Daily Politics Show, BBC, 9 March 2010. 91 BBC WM is the BBC Local Radio service for the West Midlands and South Staffordshire, operated by BBC Birmingham. 92 See footnote 90.

IV Pigeon-holing: Limiting DERR politicians to talking about so-called ‘DERR issues’

“It is a question of balance. On the one hand, I would want to speak out on BME issues which other people hadn’t spoken out on. Yet there is always the problem and danger of being typecast as the BME diversity guy.”

Skin-deep democracy

“I am not going into politics to help black communities. Unlike the present [Labour] Government, I don’t believe we should separate communities in that way. This multicultural approach is separating communities as is the dishing out of funds to whoever shouts the loudest. I want to bring my black experience to bear on politics so that it benefits blacks and whites” (candidate, DERR) “It is a question of balance. On the one hand, I would want to speak out on BME issues which other people hadn’t spoken out on. Yet there is always the problem and danger of being typecast as the BME diversity guy.” (PPC, Asian) On the other hand, there is evidence that parties are reluctant to support white politicians in tackling sensitive topics – particularly those related to race – even though some are keen to do so. One white MP, who has spoken out against forced marriages, explained how:

“I am the only one who can speak about immigration issues because I have a permanent suntan. Other [white] party members feel the same way.”

“they [mostly male Asians] hated me for it. They said I didn’t understand their community and that I may not get re-elected. If I lost some Asian male votes over my work then the Asian women’s votes more than made up for it. In terms of the party’s support, I feel that terms such as Islamophobia and racism are used to shut people up.” Former MP Ann Cryer came under fire in 2002 for speaking up about drug-dealing amongst some of her Asian constituents. The Guardian reported that then Labour MP Shahid Malik, who is of Asian origin, said ‘[h]er comments are offensive and damaging to race relations’.93 The question is, would an Asian MP speaking about the same issue have been accused of damaging race relations? A black candidate talked about his understanding of black groups and suggested that this is the case. “[I]f I talk about black issues like black crime, I get less hassle from the black communities. For example the head of a charity called Kids Company, a white woman, was leapt on for talking about certain types of crime being higher amongst black communities. But it’s true! The party loves me for this.” Worryingly, other candidates demonstrated a perceived advantage by virtue of skin colour or faith background, when talking about hot topics like terrorism and immigration, irrespective of any real knowledge of the issue. “Discussions on Islamophobia, terrorism etc, must be led by people like myself because if you [a white person] do it, you’ll be seen as a racist.” (PPC, Muslim) “I am the only one who can speak about immigration issues because I have a permanent suntan. Other [white] party members feel the same way.” (Conservative candidate, Asian) Similarly, Liberal Democrat PPC for Manchester Gorton, Qassim Afzal, explained how he campaigned with Mark Hunter MP in a by-election before 2010. “I add something different because, in a predominantly white area, people can talk to me about terrorism, Islam, immigration etc where they would not feel comfortable talking to a white candidate about such matters.”

93 Observer, ‘Labour MP sparks race row after attacking Asian drug violence’, Observer, 7 July 2002.

Another way in which a DERR politician may find their background defining their role in politics is that parties may exploit DERR candidates to defend them against accusations of being racist. Two pertinent examples come from former Conservative candidates. Patti Boulaye, a Conservative candidate for the Greater London Assembly,

Skin-deep democracy

V ‘Diversity’ initiatives and a reluctant party membership

perhaps felt compelled to defend the Mayoral candidate Jeffrey Archer against charges of racism in August 1999. “I am talking as a black woman who knows Jeffrey Archer very well and he is not a racist [authors’ emphasis]”.94 And more recently, a former Conservative PPC of Asian origin alleged, “I used to be regularly marched out to defend the party against allegations of racism”. By virtue of skin colour, a candidate is seen as able to defuse allegations of racism levelled against a party (or a particular politician), revealing the ease with which DERR candidates may be (mis)used to cover up real problems. As long as parties shy away from allowing white politicians to tackle ‘sensitive’ issues for fear of being seen as racist or ‘Islamophobic, they will continue to rely on DERR politicians as ‘ethnic mouthpieces’, limiting their identity to a single facet and denying then the range of opportunities available to their white colleagues.

Key points Pigeon-holing DERR MPs as race- or faith-based politicians can underutilize their broader knowledge and expertise Using DERR candidates or MPs as ‘ethnic mouthpieces’, particularly to defend the party against allegations of racism, is disingenuous and misleading MPs, irrespective of their ethnicity or faith should enjoy party support in raising ‘sensitive’ (race or faith related) issues Encouraging candidates to identify with the electorate on the basis of their race or faith risks sanctioning ‘ethnic favouritism’ thus calling their impartiality into question

V ‘Diversity’ initiatives and a reluctant party membership V.I Resistance to centrally-backed candidates This section will discuss the shortcomings of a top-down approach to improving under-representation and present the case for longer-term thinking on diversifying party membership. Great care needs to be taken by all the parties to prevent measures introduced to improve DERR involvement in Westminster politics from backfiring. Whilst the resistance of local parties to interference by party HQ in candidate selection is common to all three main parties, it is the Conservatives with their ‘A List’ of priority candidates, drawn up by party HQ, that seems to have created the biggest stir. In 2008, the Conservative Party’s Deputy Chairman (Candidates) explained in his submission to the Speaker’s Conference (2009) that ‘there are currently about 100 Priority Candidates, of whom half are women and 20% are from BME groups’.95 Then, in May 2009, as the MPs’ expenses scandal erupted, Cameron re-opened his A List. However, in a poll conducted by the Conservative Home website in September 2009, 84% of party members said they would prefer candidates with a track record of commitment to the party than ‘someone who has responded to David Cameron’s recent call for new candidates’.96 It is perhaps testament to the quality of the ‘A Listers’ that 38 out of the original 100 were elected as MPs in May 2010, given that the requirement for LCAs to shortlist candidates from it was abandoned not long after it was reopened in 2009.97 Several candidates who had been on the A List felt

94 BBC, ‘Black Tory defends Archer’, BBC News, 10 August 1999. 95 John Maples, Deputy Chairman (Candidates), Conservative Party, Speaker’s Conference, written submissions, p. 228. 96 T. Montgomerie, ‘Twenty people who would make excellent Conservative MPs’, Conservative Home, 20 September 2009.

Skin-deep democracy

V.I Resistance to centrally-backed candidates

“People are pissed off with the political class; they want a local social worker instead. This works against BME candidates because they are less geographically spread out, predominantly concentrated in the urban areas.”

that at best it had been ineffective and at worst a hindrance. “In my experience, being on the list it can be a point of tension with other, non-A List candidates at selections. Many who are not on the list believe that it is a form of positive discrimination and unfair. As a result, A List candidates are often held in low regard amongst other candidates. I was told by party members in local associations that the only reason they were giving me an interview was because I was on the A List [and they had to]” (Conservative candidate, DERR) “It does not mean that candidates are fast tracked. If anything, it causes tension between local associations, party members, the candidate, and Tory party HQ as locals do not like the idea of an imposed candidate with little, if any, connection with the constituency.” (party member, white) One DERR candidate thinks that the expenses scandal has been responsible for an increased demand for local candidates, perhaps irrespective of political experience. “People are pissed off with the political class; they want a local social worker instead. This works against BME candidates because they are less geographically spread out, predominantly concentrated in the urban areas [...] I think the whole thing is in crisis – we’ve come to breaking point. Local parties are rejecting all the centre’s [party headquarters’] candidates in favour of locals. I feel a weaker candidate was chosen, mainly because he was perceived to be less of a central office candidate. This is exacerbated for BME candidates because they look at the black guy and they think this is a central office guy.” Such is the resistance within all parties to central control being exerted over the local party apparatus that local party members may retaliate by voting against any candidate who is perceived to be a centrally imposed ‘token’. A level of resistance was shown to Sam Gyimah’s February 2010 selection for the Conservative safe seat of Surrey East. A local Conservative councillor illustrated the local reaction to an imposed shortlist “[i]t’s not about being gay Muslim or black. It’s about having the right person for the job and someone who knows the area. People are very upset”. Another councillor suggested Gyimah as well as the other candidates – a gay man, a Muslim man and three women – were there to tick boxes. “It’s not about what’s best for the party in East Surrey it’s about what the party wants.” It is worth noting that Sam Gyimah MP and Nadhim Zahawi MP, as well as Sajid Javid MP (Bromsgrove) constitute half of the six PPCs selected for ‘safe’ Conservative seats, and all three were shortlisted by party HQ under by-election procedures and selected by LCAs close to the election – in February 2010.

97 Including Sam Gymiah and Priti Patel. Helen Grant was part of the second A List and was duly elected as well. Conservative Home, ’38 of the original 100 A-Listers are now MPs’, Conservative Home, 9 May 2010.

Where DERR candidates are backed by party HQ, particularly in the form of being placed on imposed shortlists, the danger is that if they are not demonstrably better than their white, (able-bodied, male, heterosexual) counterparts the membership can appear justified in their claims that they are tokens, an accusation which is very hard to defend against for a DERR candidate who is not exceptional (but of a similar quality to other, white, candidates). This has serious implications for how local parties see future DERR candidates who come with central party approval and backing, but more immediately challenges DERR candidates’ credibility as serious politicians and as role models to the next generation.

Skin-deep democracy

V.II DERR politicians as credible role models

V.II DERR politicians as credible role models The importance of (DERR) role models for the political engagement of DERR groups should not be under-estimated. According to research conducted in 2006 of the experiences and views of 17 Muslim councillors, ‘[m]ost [...] mentioned that they hoped that their own service and activities will encourage civic involvement among Muslim youth’.98 Of no less importance, successful Muslim politicians may also embody a counter-narrative to the Islamist argument that Muslims in the UK should not engage in the democratic process because it is ineffective or even, according to some Islamist beliefs, forbidden in Islam. (see Case Studies One and Two for details of Islamist activities). More inclusive and far-reaching outreach to, and involvement of, DERR groups by political parties is of course to be encouraged, but where it entails the use of DERR politicians as role models, this must not be a factor in the selection process of such candidates. Ahead of the 2010 election, several PPCs from all three parties felt they had a role to play in broader engagement.

“I think I have a unique opportunity to help involve ethnic minority women, and I can do it because I show that race and religion are no barrier to getting involved with the Labour Party – I hope I can change perceptions.” (Labour PPC, Asian female) Another Asian PPC stated that she wanted to make those of DERR background see that the party has an “open door policy” and that “they can do it too”, whilst another felt that he was not exactly a role model but he at least “shows that it can be done”. Illustrating the need to disband the narrow stereotype of a ‘typical’ politician, a black PPC for the Conservatives had not expected to even get to the parliamentary assessment board because she felt she did not have the right background. “I thought I didn’t stand a chance because I don’t have a degree (although I have a degree now), I’ve not been to Oxford, I’ve not worked in local government or the public sector or a charity.” Now that this candidate has been successfully selected on other merits, it may send strong signals to other aspiring DERR politicians. Similarly, DERR politicians may effectively challenge negative stereotypes held within wider society. Shaun Bailey, Conservative PPC for Hammersmith, has lamented the media portrayal of black people, saying that “[o]nly terrorists are represented as badly”,99 leaving it up to people like Bailey to overturn this stereotype. Adeela Shafi, also a Conservative PPC, cites as one of the two motivating factors for her embarking on a political career, to ‘actively overturn the negative stereotypes of Muslims’.100 Although a DERR politician, once elected, can be an effective role model, this should not be a factor in their selection. Otherwise, there is a risk that excessive expectations are placed on the DERR candidate which, if not managed carefully, can risk junior DERR politicians swiftly becoming disenchanted with politics in general and other DERR individuals being put off involvement with politics at all. Oona King detailed her experiences getting selected for Labour to represent Bethnal Green & Bow in 1997, in particular her attempts to motivate Pola Uddin (now Baroness Uddin), whom she was shortlisted alongside. King records herself as saying: “You can do it, and you WILL do it, or I’LL KILL YOU. You’ve a responsibility to all black women to do this well.”101 DERR role models should only be held up to realistic standards and must not be

98 A.H. Sinno, E. Tatari, (2009), ‘Muslims in UK institutions: Effective Representation or Tokenism?’, Muslims in World Politics ed. A.H. Sinno, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), pp. 117-119. 99 Y. Alibhai-Brown, D.J. Henry, ‘Young, black and British: The young men who refuse to bow to the stereotypes’, Independent, 22 November 2008. 100 L. Gregorie, (2008), ‘OBV Profile: Adeela Shafi’, Operation Black Vote, 19 February 2008. 101 O. King, (2007), The Oona King Diaries: House Music, (London: Bloomsbury Publishing), p. 58

Skin-deep democracy

V.II DERR politicians as credible role models

“I was left wondering whether my lack of success was down to the fact that I had not previously been selected for a seat so had no experience of even sitting in an unwinnable seat. When I pressed those within the candidate selection committee, I was told, and it was inferred that I was, variously ‘too short’, ‘didn’t look, or sound right’ for election, and one area campaign director even told me I was unsuccessful purely due to ‘cosmetic reasons.’”

judged by higher standards than those against which others are measured. No doubt Chuka Umunna, now Labour’s MP for Streatham, felt undue pressure being labelled as ‘Barack Obama for Britain’.102 At a cross-party ‘diversity’ event organized by OBV in March 2009, it was reported that when David Lammy MP first entered Parliament a decade ago, ‘he was then thought of as the ‘Black Blair’ and recently after the historic American elections, he’s thought of as the ‘British Obama’’. Lammy said that he hopes in his next decade in Parliament, ‘people will think of him simply as David Lammy’.103 Raising unnecessarily high expectations of DERR MPs risks unjustified disappointment – this is bad for the MP but also bad for their supporters and the patry. Similarly, parties can avoid creating unjustified disappointment by providing better feedback mechanisms for candidates seeking (re)selection, to militate against any misunderstandings about the factors behind a DERR candidate’s lack of success. Particularly damaging are negative experiences during the selection process which DERR candidates perceive as being the result of prejudice. One Asian PPC applied for more than 40 seats before she was selected and although she was not interviewed for every seat applied for, felt that the main problem is a “serious lack of feedback mechanisms” for failed candidates. “I was left wondering whether my lack of success was down to the fact that I had not previously been selected for a seat so had no experience of even sitting in an unwinnable seat. When I pressed those within the candidate selection committee, I was told, and it was inferred that I was, variously ‘too short’, ‘didn’t look, or sound right’ for election, and one area campaign director even told me I was unsuccessful purely due to ‘cosmetic reasons.’” DERR politicians can play a valuable role in showing to DERR individuals that they too can successfully become involved in politics. But if expectations are not carefully managed, for example by failing to give adequate feedback and explanations for lack of success, or excessive pressure is placed on DERR candidates, then such an approach could well backfire. V.III Tokenism Of equal importance, it is also absolutely critical that DERR candidates are held up as exemplary where they have proved themselves to be so and that they succeed where they deserve to. The most oft-employed and apparently innocuous form special treatment can take is high-profile media coverage that appears more concerned with ‘ethnic window dressing’ than rewarding hard-working party members with recognition and exposure.

102 M. Bright, ‘A Barack Obama for Britain’, New Statesman, 8 January 2009. 103 A. Hassan, ‘New Generation of Prospective Parliamentary Candidates Reception and Photo Call’, Operation Black Vote, 25 March 2009. 104 Conservative Manifesto (2010), ‘Invitation to Join the British Government’. 105 A. Hirsch, ‘General election 2010: If Britain is really postracial, why is the election so white?’.

For example, Conservative ‘poster-boy’ PPC Shaun Bailey featured in the Conservatives Manifesto (2010) in a full-page photograph in the ‘Change Politics’ section, where no other PPC is featured as prominently.104 This has very real practical implications as well – according to the Guardian, one black Conservative candidate talked ‘of a persistent pressure to appear in photo shoots when they would rather be out on the doorstep’,105 curtailing valuable campaign time. One Chinese PPC reported that, “I don’t see ethnicity as a key element for me, though others see it differently. I’ve been told that since I’m one of the first Chinese people to stand for Parliament that I should make some noise. But I’m not sure. And it may turn some people off. People should get to know me as an individual.” A Muslim PPC lamented:

Skin-deep democracy

V.II DERR politicians as credible role models

“I feel that we are given the Muslim tag all the time and you can’t take it off.” Attempts to ‘fast track’ DERR candidates run the very grave risk of undermining the credibility of those candidates who succeed. Several interviewees reported encountering assumptions that their success was a result of such ‘fast tracking’ rather than their own merits: “I didn’t play the BME card – I got here on merit and a lot of hard work. I don’t ever want to make race an issue [in who I represent] [authors’ emphasis].” (PPC, Asian female) “I just want to be a Labour MP. I don’t want my colour or creed to get in the way and I want to succeed in politics on my own merits [authors’ emphasis].” (candidate, Sikh) “If you are fast tracked you don’t learn anything about campaigning. This is especially the case for safe seats where you run the risk of taking your voters for granted. Moreover, I feel I will only ever be a role model to those within BME groups if I have succeeded on my own, without special provisions and assistance.” (PPC, black ) Moreover, where qualified DERR candidates succeed in getting selected first time round for a good seat, they may be negatively affected by the assumption that there was some fast-tracking by the party, as a DERR PPC selected for a marginal seat explained: “I have stopped telling people that I only went through one selection meeting and got selected – they are suspicious of how quickly I succeeded.” Nadhim Zahawi MP, although he had run as a PPC for the party in 1997, was selected for the safe Conservative seat of Stratford-upon-Avon in February 2010. On the BBC’s Daily Politics Show he was asked about his party’s drive to increase underrepresentation of DERR groups and appeared to feel he had to defend his selection, the shortlist for which was drawn up by CCHQ, emphasizing that he was selected “on merit”.106 Similarly, journalist and blogger Iain Dale asks Conservative PPC Shazia Awan in an interview in September 2008 whether she feels there’s been any kind of tokenism in how the party has embraced her – within eight months of joining she became Chairperson of the Conservative Muslim Women’s Forum. Asked if she had been “pushed into things” a little bit too quickly, she then had to list her qualities and achievements.107 Once again, were parties’ selection processes more transparent and robust, Awan and Zahawi would not need to justify their successes.

“I feel that we are given the Muslim tag all the time and you can’t take it off.”

“I just want to be a Labour MP. I don’t want my colour or creed to get in the way and I want to succeed in politics on my own merits.”

“I have stopped telling people that I only went through one selection meeting and got selected – they are suspicious of how quickly I succeeded.”

“For the time being I am happy to use my colour to my advantage. If I was white, it [my application and selection] wouldn’t have happened as quickly.”

At the same time, some interviewees seemed to be happy to take advantage of party fast-tracking of DERR candidates. For example, one DERR candidate stated: “For the time being I am happy to use my colour to my advantage. If I was white, it [my application and selection] wouldn’t have happened as quickly.” It is clear that treating DERR candidates as good photo opportunities to ‘prove’ the party’s inclusivity risks undermining their position as credible politicians, even if some DERR politicians are happy to go along with such tactics. Since improving the political engagement of DERR groups is achieved in no small part through parties having wellrespected, competent DERR role models, parties are shooting themselves in the foot with the mismanagement of their attempts at diversification.

106 BBC, ‘David Mellor and Nadhim Zawhi [sic] on ethnic candidates’, BBC Daily Politics Show, BBC, 9 March 2010. 107 YouTube, ‘Rising Star’, 11 September 2008.

Skin-deep democracy

V.IV The need for a refreshed party membership

V.IV The need for a refreshed party membership Any meaningful attempt to address DERR involvement in Westminster politics must take a longer-term approach, namely refreshing the parties’ membership to better reflect the wider population. However, there are also certain barriers to this which will be examined, most notably suspicion of DERR individuals signed up as party members through recruitment ‘drives’. Furthermore, there are reported cases of local party members acting to obstruct certain candidates from being selected, using underhand stratagems. Given that it is the party membership that in most cases determines the candidate who will represent them in Westminster, the largely white membership that exists across the three main parties has serious implications for DERR candidates where the ‘replication theory’ is applied. According to the Speaker’s Conference’s final report (2010), this theory states that “[p]eople will naturally choose people who appear to be like themselves [authors’ emphasis]”.108 As one black councillor put it, the members “choose themselves in some shape or form – they go with what makes them feel comfortable”. This simply cannot be accepted as a ‘natural’ state of affairs and whilst this may explain patterns of selection it does not justify them, even if interviewees appeared to be quite accepting of the status quo. “The local party tends to select white people because they prefer people they can relate to – not through any malice but through force of habit and loyalty to the people they know.” (Liberal Democrat PPC, Asian)

“The problems in Oldham, Tower Hamlets and Burnley have left their legacy. The party and local associations see Asian candidates and they think ‘entryism’, what is their agenda, ‘I don’t know what they’re up to’ and so on.”

“I spoke to three senior party members ahead of the selection meeting and they all said, on the basis of what they knew about the LCA there, that they would be shocked if they didn’t give it to a white middle-class guy. I don’t think it’s racism. It’s just that the selection panel is culturally aligned in a particular way, namely one which favours white, middle-class candidates, and the selectorate is unable to think outside the box.” (former Conservative candidate, DERR) Whilst party membership is not broken down by gender, faith or ethnicity, PPCs’ experiences of the demographics of local party branches point to an ageing membership of mostly white men. In his experience, an Asian PPC remarked that “most of the people running these [local Conservative] associations are 102 years old! It will be better with the next generation who will have gone to school with minorities”. Another PPC, for Labour, that “local party branches are totally male dominated and archaic – from another century”. One Liberal Democrat PPC explained the challenges of refreshing party membership and diversifying local party branches: “Every year there is a membership drive from head office, sometimes several in a year. If you go out and recruit members from BME communities, you may or may not get a good response. If you get a very good response and recruit large numbers, almost without exception BME recruiters find that their local Party complains to either the Regional Party or head office, or both. For example they say too many Asian or Black members are being recruited by a particular local Party activist or member. This is purely because those who have been around a long time feel their own power to control, being challenged or threatened. This is rarely the case but they will go to any lengths to tarnish the reputation of the BME recruiter to try and substantiate their allegations.”

108 Speaker’s Conference Final Report, p. 41.

Moreover, according to an Asian former Liberal Democrat candidate,

Skin-deep democracy

V.IV The need for a refreshed party membership

“The problems in Oldham, Tower Hamlets and Burnley have left their legacy. The party and local associations see Asian candidates and they think ‘entryism’, ‘what is their agenda?’, ‘I don’t know what they’re up to’ and so on.” One Labour Party member explained how there was a great deal of resistance to black executive involvement in his local Labour Party branch and that legitimate new members and post holders were undermined with smears, to try and get their memberships revoked. More generally, a founding member of the Labour Party Black Sections complained about the revocation of black Labour members’ membership as soon as the party leadership suspected they (the DERR members) could take power locally. “They [the local party branch] got two Asian councillors in when previously there were three white councillors, through old-fashioned organizing – they got BME individuals to sign up as members a year prior to selection and when there were usually only about 16 people in the meeting, it wasn’t difficult to get a majority in support of a candidate of their choice. However, there have been numerous examples of membership being revoked across the country where a sitting white MP was likely to get deselected by a replenished local party membership. This has caused disillusionment with Labour and a disengagement from the parliamentary political process. Alienated inner city African-Caribbeans and Asians, particularly the youth, turned instead to faith (often Muslim) and community politics.” In the longer-term, refreshing the membership is essential, not least to ensure the survival of the parties; membership fees bring in much-needed revenue. Essentially, parties cannot have it both ways; accepting membership fees but refusing voting rights or exercising discriminatory access to executive positions. What is needed is an outreach strategy involving contacting organizations that do not just deal with one specific section of society, but rather seek out groups that tackle community-wide issues. In addition to diversifying party membership at local level, another former PPC felt that there was a need to diversify the professional party members as well. “If you want real change, you need to professionalise the party with BME people at that level. So when local parties call up CCHQ and want advice on education policy for example, the fact that they’re put through to somebody with an ethnic sounding name can help change perceptions”. This will necessitate a far-reaching and long-term strategy to make party membership, as well as the party hierarchy, more inclusive.

Key points For as long as local parties retain their autonomy, HQ-imposed priority lists are not the solution Using DERR candidates as PR opportunities to show a ‘visibly’ modernizing party risks breeding resentment amongst long-standing party members. All tokenistic measures to improve under-representation undermine DERR candidates’ credibility as elected representatives and as role models Merit-based selections can only be achieved with a more transparent, standardized selection process

Skin-deep democracy

VI Positive action and discrimination – counter-productive?

“Fellow MPs will think you’re second rate if you came in on the back of positive discrimination.”

Lasting cultural change will come with the proper management of a rejuvenated party membership, achieved through effective outreach (e.g. via organizations dealing with community-wide issues)

VI Positive action and discrimination – counter-productive? Given the degree of resistance on the part of local parties towards imposed candidates and the range of methods at their disposal to ensure that they select their preferred candidate, are all-DERR or DERR-majority shortlists, in the face of a reluctant, and at times hostile ‘selectorate’, the only solution? How PPCs feel about existing positive action strategies and whether they risk undermining the spirit of cooperation and consensus-building requisite in political life in Westminster, are important considerations. VI.I The inefficacy of positive discrimination One of the key matters related to positive discrimination, and which will be examined in this section, is the risk that such measures might actually be counter-productive or damaging to cohesion. This is an increasingly important question given that the Equality Act (2010) allows political parties to reserve a specific number of spaces for DERR candidates:109 this could be in the form of all- or majority-DERR shortlists of candidates. Could such shortlists encourage rivalry to develop between DERR candidates and even cause splits to form between DERR groups within wider society? Before entering this discussion, however, it is useful to examine what measures are already in place to encourage equality in candidate selections. To date, only the Labour Party has used exclusive shortlists for under-represented groups – legislation was drawn up in 2002 for all-women shortlists, which have since been used on numerous occasions. However, there are also some measures already in place within the Labour Party to get more DERR candidates selected. The procedure is as follows – ahead of selection by the CLP, local party branches nominate their preferred candidates. In addition to an ‘unrestricted’ nomination, there are two others which ‘they [party branches] are required to use, for women and self-identified BAME candidates [authors’ emphasis]’ which may result in as many as three nominations per branch.110 The danger is that, in the event that there may be two strong white candidates and one weak DERR candidate, the latter will come through, resulting in unnecessary tension between candidates along racial, ethnic or religious lines. The issue of whether some DERR candidates are not suitably qualified but still get nominated by the party branch are illustrated by the experiences of a black Labour candidate.

109 Originally enshrined in the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, the legality of all-women shortlists has also been extended until 2030 by the Equality Act (2010). 110 Labour Party submission, Speaker’s Conference, written evidence, p. 160.

“There are four wards in the constituency and in three quarters of the wards I was the BME nomination. One of the other BME nominees couldn’t speak English – all other shortlisted BME candidates were rubbish. My own ward refused to nominate me as BME and refused to nominate a BME candidate so only put forward one nomination. I don’t want to be the BME candidate especially since the rest of the BME candidates shortlisted were not fit for purpose.” Of grave concern is how DERR candidates are seen by their peers and fellow party members where they succeed in being selected as part of positive action measures. In an interview with Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe about how her successor, Helen

Skin-deep democracy

VI.I The inefficacy of positive discrimination

Grant MP, was selected for the 2010 election, Widdecombe relates her frustration with her local party being forced to shortlist an equal number of men and women. She recalled that ‘one of our association said to the Central Office agent “are you telling us that we may not select on merit?” And with admirable honesty the Central Office agent said “yes”’.111 Little wonder then that PPCs are concerned that positive action may call a DERR candidate’s competence into question. As Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi has put it; he did not want to be “the token wog”.112 “Fellow MPs will think you’re second rate if you came in on the back of positive discrimination.” (PPC, black)

“I was wary of running as the ‘BME candidate’ but I didn’t want to lose an opportunity – I made a rational calculation that this would improve my chances. If I could, I would reapply but not as a BME candidate, just to see what happens.”

“If I felt I was awarded a seat on the basis of my skin colour I would not feel a sense of pride or achievement.” (PPC, Asian) One Asian Labour PPC was shortlisted for a predominantly white seat and in the end came second, but was left feeling conflicted. His quandary was that if he applied as the DERR candidate – which he did – then this may improve his chances of getting shortlisted but he was left feeling uncertain whether he was shortlisted because he was of a DERR background or whether it just so happened that he was of a member of a DERR group. “I was wary of running as the ‘BME candidate’ but I didn’t want to lose an opportunity – I made a rational calculation that this would improve my chances. If I could, I would reapply but not as a BME candidate, just to see what happens.” With the competition for seats framed in these terms comes the attendant risk of candidates shoring up support from their ‘own’ groups in an attempt to stifle the opposition, achieving little for social cohesion. Campaign group ‘Unlock Democracy’ aired the same concern: there is ‘a danger that minority-only contests would focus more on ethnicity — and which group’s ‘turn’ it is to win a seat — than the candidate’s qualities’.113 This would entrench existing divisions within society, particularly if all-DERR or DERR-majority shortlists are used in constituencies with large DERR populations, as is the approach likely to be taken.114 The Speaker’s Conference, in its final report (2010), declares its support for all DERR shortlists,115 but few submissions to the Conference contain the voices of the candidates themselves. This research reveals there to be a high level of concern over the issue of credibility amongst fellow candidates or party members. Conducting indepth interviews with thirty-three PPCs for this report, the majority were unequivocally against all- or majority-DERR shortlists. One DERR PPC, for the Conservatives, said he “hated” positive discrimination and described it as “more racist than anything else”. Some PPCs associated all-DERR shortlists with fast-tracking, but also ghettoizing of DERR candidates in ‘DERR’ areas, which could serve to discourage potential candidates from applying.

111 I. Dale, ‘In Conversation with Ann Widdecombe’, Total Politics. 112 D. Whitworth, T. Baldwin, ‘The fresh - and not so fresh - faces of the Tory diversity facelift’, The Times, 25 February 2010. 113 Speaker’s Conference, written evidence, p. 169.

“BME shortlists tarnish the candidates because they are seen as ‘second rate.’ You need to have the best person, no matter what their background and people need to know they’ve got the best candidate. Shortlists would inevitably be in high BME areas; therefore BME groups would feel that the ‘second rate’ candidates are reserved for them. What’s dangerous is that BME shortlists could make people think that areas are ‘not white enough for a white MP’ and vice versa, when representation shouldn’t be about colour.” (Labour PPC, DERR)

114 This was spelt out by former Labour Party leader Gordon Brown in an article contributed to Operation Black Vote in April 2010, when he referred to the possibility of DERR-majority shortlists for constituencies in areas ‘where there was a diverse local population’”. Operation Black Vote, ‘OBV Exclusive: Brown’s Pitch to Black Communities’, Operation Black Vote, 26 April 2010.

“If I had been selected from an all- BME shortlist then I think I would meet people

115 Speaker’s Conference Final Report, p. 7.

Skin-deep democracy

VI.I The inefficacy of positive discrimination

“There are some quality BME candidates out there but the Tories are not sifting the wheat from the chaff. There are lots of people jumping on the bandwagon at the moment as it’s fashionable to be Conservative and there’s too much box-ticking.”

who would say ‘You’re only my candidate because you’re a Paki’. How would that [selection from a BME shortlist] affect me on the doorstep? I don’t want to meet that kind of negative response. You would lose good candidates because they would not want to go through that kind of thing.” (Labour PPC, Asian) Interviewees felt that talent amongst DERR groups is out there but that more needed to be done to vet candidates. In short, better outreach to DERR groups will result in a larger pool of talent, which is less likely to compromise the minimum standards that apply during selection procedures, irrespective of gender- and colour-specific boxes that ‘need’ to be ticked. “Parties need to target the politically active sections of the minority communities and get them interested in party politics. We need more black politicians not rappers.” (PPC, black) “There are some quality BME candidates out there but the Tories are not sifting the wheat from the chaff. There are lots of people jumping on the bandwagon at the moment as it’s fashionable to be Conservative and there’s too much boxticking.” (former Conservative candidate, DERR) Echoing the need for parties to do better, more targeted outreach, a DERR Conservative party member talks about her experiences when she first met the LCA for a seat she had planned to apply for:

“I have seen it myself with Labour BME MPs. People around them think they have been selected just to tick a box. This does a disservice to other BME candidates who might want to come forward on the basis of their own merits. BME shortlists have the ability to seriously compromise the quality of the candidate. This merely perpetuates negative attitudes towards BME people.”

“They begged me to be their candidate – they said they needed more DERR candidates and that the ones who came forward were not articulate enough. Good candidates are hard to find.” But even where standards are maintained and the candidate is selected on merit above all else, they may still be seen and therefore treated as second-rate. As a result they may also fail to gain the confidence of the wider community and fail to be seen as compelling role models. “When I first joined the Conservatives, a party activist asked me if I was part of an initiative to get more BME candidates on board. I was quite annoyed. ‘I am my own initiative’, I told him!” (Conservative PPC, DERR) “I have seen it myself with Labour BME MPs. People around them think they have been selected just to tick a box. This does a disservice to other BME candidates who might want to come forward on the basis of their own merits. BME shortlists have the ability to seriously compromise the quality of the candidate. This merely perpetuates negative attitudes towards BME people.” (Conservative PPC, Asian) DERR candidates should always be selected on merit – if parties fail to maintain consistently high standards in their recruitment of candidates in a tick box approach to diversifying their party, this will downgrade the quality of policy-making and create tension amongst colleagues and party members, compromising consensus-building in Parliament and threatening the very fabric of Britain’s democracy.

116 Lisa Nandy MP, Chinyela Onwurah MP, Shabana Mahmood MP and Valerie Vaz MP. Although it is not known how many female and/or DERR Conservative PPCs were shortlisted as part of gender and/or DERR quotas.

Furthermore, DERR shortlists, all or majority, do not appear to be a necessary evil. After all, the May 2010 election ushered in a record number of new DERR MPs (17), half of whom represent seats with DERR populations lower than the national average. Since four of these new DERR MPs came in on the back of (all-women) shortlists,116 perhaps gender quotas already in place may be better able to level the playing field

Skin-deep democracy

VI.II The need to mainstream DERR initiatives

for DERR women, rather than DERR shortlists. Either way, this progress must be sustained. A longer-term approach to diversifying party membership is an essential part of making party branch executives more accountable and diversity monitoring of party membership as well as selections, is a crucial first step. VI.II The need to mainstream DERR initiatives This section will discuss existing initiatives targeted at DERR candidates and argue that parties need to be more rigorous in applying a needs-based approach to assistance given. It also demonstrates that the merits of positive action and internal party DERR groups must be revisited in light of the experiences of DERR candidates and that tackling under-representation of DERR individuals be done as part of broader efforts to diversify Parliament.

“I think a BME assistance body would be counterproductive as candidates, I feel, want to all be treated equally as Conservatives, as British citizens, and would feel patronised and boxed if such a group existed.”

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have schemes which specifically aid DERR candidates but the Conservatives do not. Several PPCs held reservations about the function and usefulness of DERR-specific assistance. “I don’t want to be just a BME representative and am therefore hesitant to join BME-specific groups.” (Labour PPC, Asian) “I think a BME assistance body would be counter-productive as candidates, I feel, want to all be treated equally as Conservatives, as British citizens, and would feel patronised and boxed if such a group existed.” (Conservative PPC, Asian) “I’m confused about their [BAME Labour] function. Anyway, I don’t feel I need their assistance.” (former Labour PPC, black) Moreover, a senior Liberal Democrat party official questioned how much centrallyorganized assistance to date has really improved a DERR candidate’s chances with local selection committees. It was explained that the party had been given a large sum of money to diversify the party, but could do little to address the key issues. “At the end of the day it is the local associations that are the problem.” The most recent initiative, the Liberal Democrat ‘New Generation’ initiative, was launched in June 2009 and sought ‘to support talented candidates of black, Asian and minority ethnic background within the Party [... and ...] to provide additional training and support to this ‘New Generation’’.117 One DERR Liberal Democrat PPC, who had had media training as part of the New Generation initiative, recalls that he wasn’t asked whether he had had media training before, further highlighting that assistance should be provided on the basis of need, rather than DERR background. OBV (2008) reports that a ‘fighting fund’ was launched by the Liberal Democrats in 2006 to help DERR individuals and women fight target seats.118 Interestingly, Steve Hitchens, who was tasked with drawing up the proposals for this Diversity Fund, explained that no funding was given to candidates prior to selection (so there was no support for improving candidates’ chances of being selected) rather, “seats, which are good prospects and then select female and/or ethnic minority candidates are automatically considered for additional funding”,119 effectively incentivizing local parties, with financial support, to select DERR candidates. Similar to the failings of the Liberal Democrats’ schemes, Black Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME) Labour’s work may not be felt on the ground, amongst the local party membership, where work is most needed. BAME Labour’s website states that ‘[o]ur

117 Liberal Democrats, ‘Liberal Democrats launch ‘New Generation’ of ethnic minority candidates with reception at Cowley Street on 30 June’, 30 June 2009. 118 OBV, 2008, point 9.6. 119 Campaign for Gender Balance—Liberal Democrats (2007), ‘The Diversity Fund: Steve Hitchins responds’, 25 January 2007.

Skin-deep democracy

VI.II The need to mainstream DERR initiatives

“Why are we called BAME? By naming blacks and Asians you exclude other minorities.”

main aim is to work towards increasing the number of black and Asian and other minority Members of Parliament and other elected bodies’120 and works to ensure that ‘Black, Asian and Ethnic minority members are [...] selected for the Welsh Assembly, Scottish, Westminster and European Parliaments and for public office in local and central governments’,121 to meet this objective. However, David Michael, former Ethnic Minority Officer (EMO) for Lewisham’s CLP, has “not heard about anything that they [BAME Labour] have done”. If BAME Labour seeks to get DERR candidates selected, then it is imperative that they build relationships with those that do the selections – the local parties. Furthermore, many of the DERR Labour interviewees had either not heard of BAME Labour or were concerned with its potential to be divisive. “BAME Labour is a male clique and it’s misogynistic, poisonous and the most divisive group in Labour that I’ve come across, run by bigoted, sexist and horrible men. Other BME candidates feel the same. People are scared to say anything [lose DERR votes; be labelled as racist] – Harriet Harman, Gordon Brown won’t criticize the Group – but it needs to be disbanded. Why do we need this BME group in the first place? Some of us are white, some black, some Indian, some of us care, some of us don’t.” (Labour Party member, Asian) Several PPCs were baffled by the lumping together of a diverse number of DERR groups under the ‘DERR’ banner which has led to rivalry between ‘DERR groups’. An Asian PPC related how, at a BAME Labour fringe event at the party’s conference in 2009, a young black woman stood up and said “you’re all Asian, you don’t really represent me”. BAME Labour appears to have provoked tension over its leadership and composition. “The group [BAME Labour] has squeezed out black people. BAME Labour only focuses on putting in more Asian candidates. In fact if you look at the incumbents there are at least 15 Asian MP and Peers, where are the Afro Caribbean or African ones?” (Councillor, black) “Why are we called BAME? By naming blacks and Asians you exclude other minorities.” (former Labour PPC, DERR) Over-emphasis on a person’s colour or religion does not allow for the diversity within racial and faith groups and risks generating rivalry and resentment amongst and between DERR groups. Centrally-organized advocacy groups such as BAME Labour would perhaps be more usefully employed in supporting the party in its diversity monitoring and helping to build up networks with local parties on the ground where the recruitment drives and selections actually take place. Parties should realign ‘DERR’ assistance and take a competency-based approach in their measures to diversify Parliament. Concerns about under-representation of DERR groups in particular must be mainstreamed into parties’ diversifying endeavours, rather than separated out.

Key points Training and financial assistance provided by parties must be open to all candidates on the basis of need 120 BAME Labour, ‘Welcome from BAME Labour Chair Ahmad Shahzad’.

Party advocacy groups that aim to aid DERR candidates must build up networks with local party selection committees

121 BAME Labour, ‘BAME Labour’s Aims and Objectives’.

Parties must take a broader approach to tackling under-representation and

Skin-deep democracy

VI.II The need to mainstream DERR initiatives

mainstream DERR initiatives accordingly DERR â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;nominationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; contribute to inter-DERR group tension and should not be mandatory DERR shortlists risk ghettoizing candidates to specific seats and ultimately may deter candidates from applying by undermining their talent

Skin-deep democracy

Chapter Two: Case Studies

Chapter Two: Case Studies I Case Study One - East London On the surface, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets looks like a model of successful DERR involvement in politics. One of the two MPs representing constituencies in the borough are DERR, as are the majority of its councillors. However, this disguises the racialised attitudes which still appear to guide politics in the area and it also does not reflect other unhealthy aspects of politics in Tower Hamlets, for example the fact that an Islamist group appears to have successfully infiltrated local political parties. Furthermore, all parties in the area appear to be happy to engage with sectarian religious bodies in the hope of mobilising ‘bloc votes’ and female Muslim politicians have reported, in particular, verbal – and occasionally physical – attack by Islamists and some conservative Muslims. All of these factors mean that the impression given by Tower Hamlets, that its political life is a vibrant model of inclusivity, is far from accurate. The risk is that these circumstances could lead to instability in East London and potentially, as outlined in this report’s introduction, to increased recruitment by extremists, both Islamist and far-right. To better understand the factors underpinning the unhealthy political life of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, this section will firstly examine the actions of the parties and then look at the influence of other external groups upon them. 122 Previous to boundary changes in 2010, this constituency was called ‘Poplar and Canning Town’ and no longer includes some areas which are under the authority of Newham Council. It also includes two wards that were previously part of Bethnal Green and Bow. 123 Throughout this report the authors have used the term ‘Bangladeshi’ to describe individuals who themselves were born in Bangladesh, or whose parents or even grandparents were born there, although they are British citizens and/or voters just like individuals of any other background. In this context, therefore, ‘Bangladeshi’ is used to describe a racial background akin to ‘white’, ‘black’ or ‘Asian’, not a nationality and it is used (rather than other terms like ‘Bengali’) because this was the term by which interviewees most commonly self-identified. 124 T. Kushner, (2006), ‘Great Britons: Immigration, History, and Modernity’, Histories and Memories: Migrants and Their History in Britain, ed. Kathy Burrell and Panikos Panayi, (London: I.B. Tauris), p. 19.

I.I Profile of Tower Hamlets The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is one council area, but it is roughly broken into two parliamentary constituencies. The southern half of Tower Hamlets is within the new Poplar and Limehouse constituency (largely formed out of the old Poplar and Canning Town constituency)122 and the northern half is within the constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow. Both MPs, Jim Fitzpatrick in Poplar and Limehouse and Rushanara Ali in Bethnal Green and Bow, are from Labour. Between 2005 and 2010, Bethnal Green and Bow was represented by George Galloway, the ‘Respect’ party’s only ever MP. Tower Hamlets is home to one of the highest DERR populations in the UK. 49% of its inhabitants have an ethnicity other than white British. The most common DERR background in Tower Hamlets is Bangladeshi.123 Indeed, of all Bangladeshi individuals in the UK, one fifth live in the borough of Tower Hamlets, although a number of groups of a black African or Afro-Caribbean background also live in the borough, as do many recent immigrants from Somalia and Eastern Europe.124 I.II Actions by political parties in Tower Hamlets A number of actions taken by all the main political parties (including Respect) in Tower Hamlets have helped to undermine truly representative democracy in the area. They have done so in a variety of ways, ranging from their selection of council and Westminster candidates to their style of campaigning. I.II.I ‘Typecasting’: Restricting DERR politicians to running in areas with large DERR populations Tower Hamlets Council features the highest number of DERR councillors in the country, with almost three fifths of its representatives (30 out of 51 – 58.8%) coming from DERR backgrounds (almost entirely Bangladeshi) and just over one third (21

Skin-deep democracy

I.II Actions by political parties in Tower Hamlets

out of 51 – 41.2%) from a white (British or other) background.125 This compares with the results of the 2001 census which found that white groups make up 51.4% of the population of Tower Hamlets, suggesting that fewer white people have been elected as councillors than might be expected.126 Twenty-eight out of the 41 (68.2%) Labour councillors are DERR, the remaining two DERR councillors are a Conservative councillor (of the eight elected – 12.5%) and the sole Respect councillor. Tower Hamlets Councillors

7 1

Conservative white Conservative DERR Labour white

Labour DERR Respect DERR

Despite this diversity (at least amongst the Labour councillors who make up the lion’s share of the council) there is a clear correlation between DERR councillors and the DERR population of wards; all but one councillor (93.3%) in the five wards with the highest DERR populations127 have a DERR (most often Bangladeshi) background. This high proportion of DERR councillors could suggest that Bangladeshis in Tower Hamlets are particularly politically active, that there is a lack of political aspiration amongst the white British living in these wards, or even that there is discrimination against white politicians. This is clearly an area which deserves further study. By contrast, in the four wards with an above average proportion of residents with a white British background (roughly speaking, above 50% of the population),128 of the 12 councillors representing these wards, just three (25%) have a DERR background (two Labour, one Conservative). It could be argued that it is to be expected that a correlation should exist between the DERR population of a ward and the backgrounds of the ward’s councillors.129 However, even if this is the case, such a correlation appears to be exaggerated in Tower Hamlets; there are a disproportionately high All councillors in the (five) wards with highest DERR populations

Labour white Labour DERR Respect DERR

125 Tower Hamlets, ‘Elected Representatives’. At present no more information is available about councillors newly elected in 2010 so it is difficult to confirm this statistic. 126 Office for National Statistics, ‘Ethnic Group (KS06)—Area: Tower Hamlets. 127 In this case, wards where less than 35% of the population have a White British background according to the 2001 census. These are: Spitalfields and Banglatown, Bethnal Green South, Shadwell, Whitechapel and Bromley by Bow. 128 These are: Bow West, Bow East, Blackwall and Cubitt Town and Millwall. 129 Unlike MPs, councillors often represent a ward in which they are resident. Therefore, it is less likely that there will exist, in wards with extremely low DERR populations, DERR individuals with the desire and ability to become councillors for those wards. Unfortunately, an examination of DERR involvement in council-level politics in the UK is beyond the scope of this report.

Skin-deep democracy

I.II Actions by political parties in Tower Hamlets

“[Anti-Semitism] was used really effectively during the campaign in a way that didn’t exactly shock me, because I’m aware of its existence, but in my life it had always been the black part of me that attracted the most prejudice. And suddenly it was the Jewish part of me.”

number of DERR councillors in above average DERR wards and a disproportionately low number in predominantly white wards. All councillors in the (four) wards with lowest DERR populations

2 4

Conservative white Conservative DERR Labour white Labour DERR

5 (Pie-charts are to scale) It would appear from these statistics that, in Tower Hamlets, councillors are being ‘typecast’ as best able to ‘represent’ wards in which the majority of the population share their background. This is a worryingly racialised approach to politics and representation and should be rejected. I.II.II Manipulating ‘bloc votes’ using divisive issues Some politicians have attempted to mobilise ‘bloc votes’ by highlighting and manipulating controversial and divisive issues particularly surrounding race and religion. Despite its inevitably malign impact, such campaigning designed to encourage voters to vote either for or against a candidate because of their (the candidate’s and/or the voter’s) racial or religious background is not, unfortunately, something new in Tower Hamlets. For example, former Labour MP, Oona King, has stated that anti-Semitism was influential in her defeat in 2005 by Respect’s George Galloway: “[Anti-Semitism] was used really effectively during the campaign in a way that didn’t exactly shock me, because I’m aware of its existence, but in my life it had always been the black part of me that attracted the most prejudice. And suddenly it was the Jewish part of me.”130

130 E. Brockes, ‘Q: Did antisemitism cost you the election? A: Definitely. There was Iraq, of course, but it was particularly being Jewish’, Guardian, 12 September 2005. 131 Ibid. 132 J. Fitzpatrick, ‘Victory Speech’, 7 May 2010.

Rumours were also spread in Bethnal Green and Bow by King’s rivals that she wanted to ban halal meat and that she was funded by Mossad, the Israeli secret service.131 Similarly, after his success in the 2010 election, Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick warned that various groups had tried to “poison the minds” of Muslim voters so that they would vote against him. “I have recently been the subject of a number of smears, being accused of Islamophobia, of trying to ban traditional Muslim weddings, of trying to close the East London Mosque and other such nonsense. These would be laughable if it were not peddled to try and poison the minds of the Muslim community. Happily, that community refused to be conned and came out to vote for me with thousands of other constituents of other faiths and none.132

Skin-deep democracy

I.III Influences from other groups and bodies

Whether or not these divisive tactics are effective in narrow party political terms, they are entirely inappropriate. It is entirely legitimate to criticise an MP or candidate’s actions, but spreading exaggerated or fabricated stories is both dishonest and liable to cause serious damage to cohesion in the area. I.II.III Manipulating ‘bloc votes’ through individuals and institutions Similarly divisive is the tactic mentioned by several interviewees of using relationships with influential individuals or religious institutions to attempt to manipulate voters in a ‘bloc’ fashion. For example, it was suggested by several interviewees that it is possible to obtain a ‘bloc vote’ of support by developing a close relationship with the East London Mosque. For example, Conservative Councillor Ahmed Hussain attributed much of Livingstone’s prior success to his relationship with East London Mosque and the fact that, in having a good relationship with the mosque, Hussain believes, a party “can get 400 votes in one go” and said: “Ken used to win just because of them.” The Conservatives have themselves similarly attempted to obtain a ‘bloc vote’ from prominent mosques like East London Mosque. For example, Boris Johnson visited East London Mosque in September 2009,133 a visit which Hussain, formerly a Respect councillor, claimed to have organized because he believes that the East London Mosque is “the heart of Tower Hamlets and the East End”. As a ‘Muslim community activist’ interviewed by London’s Evening Standard said, Conservative PPC in Poplar and Limehouse, Tim Archer, appears to have enjoyed unprecedented success with this tactic of attempting to gain the backing of mosques. “A number of mosques have come out in support of Archer, which is big news because they’ve never supported a Conservative before.”134 Ahmed Hussain even alleged that one former councillor had promised to give land to a mosque in Tower Hamlets in return for votes, a stratagem which was ultimately blocked by local organizations. Of course, politicians should visit a range of institutions and meet a range of people in the area where they are seeking election. However, using visits to mosques as a way of meeting a wider range of constituents is very different to what is being discussed here: using a relationship with a handful of individuals within a mosque (or other institution) to try to obtain a ‘bloc vote’ from the people who pray there. The end result of such tactics is to empower those individuals, to the point where the politician who engages in such tactics could be (or perceived as being) beholden to them. It also denies the right of each voter to be treated as an individual and to have their various concerns and interests addressed by their political representatives. I.III Influences from other groups and bodies It is not just the political parties themselves who are at fault for the unhealthy state of politics in Tower Hamlets; there are also a number of external influences which impact on local and Westminster democracy in the area. Some of these are deliberate attempts to subvert democracy in the area, for example the anti-democratic activities of certain Islamist groups, whereas others, such as socially conservative attitudes held by some Muslims and racialised attitudes held by some Bangladeshi residents,

133 R. Gledhill, ‘Boris Johnson urges non-Muslims to fast for a day in Ramadan’, Times, 5 September 2009. 134 D. Cohen, ‘Wedding fiasco has made it a very close match in Poplar’, Evening Standard, 12 April 2010.

Skin-deep democracy

I.III Influences from other groups and bodies’

undermine the principles of democratic representation and can damage efforts to increase DERR (especially female DERR) involvement in politics. I.III.I Islamist ‘entryism’ A distinctive feature of politics in Tower Hamlets is that the local Labour Party is under ‘special measures’. This means that candidates for local elections are not selected by local party officials but by the London regional party. A party spokesman has explained this:

135 This is a reference to ‘Militant Tendency’, a Trotskyist group which used the tactic of ‘entryism’ to gain influence over the Labour Party. Militant Tendency was particularly successful in Liverpool, where supporters were able to take control of the council, and it was also able to secure the election of a number of MPs. From 1985, individuals identified as members of Militant were expelled from the party and created a new party, Militant Labour. C. Cook, J. Stevenson, (2000), The Longman companion to Britain since 1945, (Harlow: Pearson Education), p277 and E. Shaw, (1988), Discipline and discord in the Labour Party: the politics of managerial control in the Labour Party, (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 218-220. 136 M. Brooke, ‘Labour HQ seizes local party’s crisis-hit selection process’, East London Advertiser, 13 June 2009. 137 J. Strawson, (2008), ‘Islam and the Politics of Terrorism: Aspects of the British Experience’, Fresh Perspectives on the War on Terror ed. Miriam Gani and Penelope Matthew, (Australia: ANU E Press), p. 17. 138 ‘Britain’s Islamic Republic’, Dispatches, Channel 4, 1 March 2010. (Henceforth ‘Dispatches’) 139 A.A. Mawdudi, (1920), Jihad in Islam, ch.3, p. 10. Originally published in Urdu. 140 Islamic Forum Europe, ‘Statement in response to Dispatches programme, 1 March 2010’, 2 March 2010.

“Tower Hamlets has been in special measures for some time over membership. We’re concerned about people joining for the right reasons and are trying to prevent organizations filtering in who may try taking over the party by signing up and ousting existing members. We’re sensitive following events with Militant [Tendency]135 a few years ago.”136 BOX 2: Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) is an Islamist group linked to South Asian Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, established by Sayyid Abdul Ala Mawdudi,137 whose works are studied by all IFE members at organized study sessions.138 Mawdudi has written: “It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confirm this rule to a single state or to a handful of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than a world revolution.”139 Although IFE has stated that it would not want to create an ‘Islamic state’ in Britain,140 it remains committed to Mawdudi’s goal of creating an Islamic state in Muslim-majority countries. IFE’s intolerant vision of what this state would be like is demonstrated by, amongst other things, an article distributed on IFE’s website which claims that shari’ah, the Islamic code of conduct, mandates that Muslims who publicly leave Islam should be killed.141 Equally as worrying, Azad Ali, a civil servant who is heavily involved in the leadership of IFE, has written articles for a blog hosted on the IFE’s website in which he supported the killing of British and American troops in Iraq.142 If individuals (of any party) are being elected with the help of IFE then there is a very real risk that their ability to represent all of the people who voted for them will be severely undermined because a politician who relies on support marshaled by IFE is less likely to criticize IFE’s ideology and rhetoric, or, more generally, to take decisions which would damage their relationship with IFE, for example refusing to grant a planning application to institutions associated with IFE.

This matter was the subject of an investigation by a Channel 4 programme in March 2010 which suggested that an Islamist group linked to South Asian political party

Skin-deep democracy

I.III Influences from other groups and bodies

Jamaat-e-Islami, Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), was the cause of this concern. Jim Fitzpatrick, MP for Poplar and Limehouse, within Tower Hamlets, described the process by which IFE were able to gain influence over the Labour party: “People were being signed up to be members [of the Labour Party] and then told to turn up at the meetings where candidates were being selected with a list of those who they should be voting for and were never seen before and never seen afterwards [...] They [IFE] are acting almost as an entryist organization, placing people within political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get those individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power whether it’s at local government level or it’s at national level.”143 This programme also quoted George Galloway as saying that he owed his success in 2005, at least in part, to the activism of members of IFE: “I am indebted, more than I can say, more than it would be wise for them [sic] for me to say, to the Islamic Forum of Europe. I believe they played the decisive role.”144 A response to the Dispatches programme, from a spokesman for Galloway, appears to confirm this analysis, but denied that IFE had gained influence in return: “The IFE and other anti-war groups were very helpful and instrumental in overturning a 10,000 Labour majority and giving George an 800 majority. But he has never been asked anything [in return] by the IFE. They have never sought to influence him in any way.”145 As has already been made clear, being influenced by IFE is not the sole reason why receiving their support would be problematic. Dispatches also suggested that IFE is now hoping to maintain its influence through the campaign, led by Bethnal Green and Bow’s Respect PPC, Abjol Miah, to allow Tower Hamlets to directly elect a mayor. In a referendum carried out at the same time as the 2010 General Election, the electorate of Tower Hamlets democratically chose to have an elected mayor for the borough.146 One activist with IFE suggested that the group was planning to take over the position for their own ends: “He’s [an elected mayor] gonna have a lot more control [...] that’s why we need to get someone, one of our brothers, in there. Which we will do, whether it’ll be brother Azad [Ali]147 or someone else.”148 It is vital that all parties take note of the ways in which IFE has sought to influence elections in the past so that it cannot regain influence through this position or others. Labour’s attempts to keep certain Labour councillors, particularly former Labour Council Leader Lutfur Rahman, from being shortlisted as a potential Labour mayoral candidate would appear to have been aimed at denying influence to IFE.149 The influence of IFE is further shown by the fact that one Conservative councillor stated that “[y]ou can’t just uproot an organization like that” and some interviewees would only speak about the influence of IFE off the record. Given IFE’s ideological leanings and apparent influence in some areas, it would seem to be unwise for politicians in the area to risk giving IFE influence over them by becoming dependent, to a greater or lesser extent, on support marshalled by IFE supporters. Political parties

141 An article distributed on IFE’s website states that people who privately reject Islam should not be punished, but that, according to ‘Islamic law’, people who do so publicly should be killed: ‘Islamic law, (shari’a), likewise stipulated killing in cases of established public apostasy. Though there is little literature on the emergence and application of apostasy law in the early periods of Muslim history, its actual application usually depended upon whether its declaration was public or private. Within the Islamic state, what minorities — religious and otherwise — did in their private lives was left to their own discretion, even if it may have been technically termed “deviant” or against Islamic teaching.’ A. Adhami, ‘The right to change one’s religion’, Islamic Forum Europe website, 1 November 2007. 142 O. Luft, ‘‘Kill British’ blog man fails in MoS libel bid’, Press Gazette, 28 January 2010. 143 Dispatches 144 Dispatches 145 R. Lydall, ‘Tower Hamlets accused of being infiltrated by Islamic extremists’, East London Advertiser, 1 March 2010. 146 60,758 (60.4%) voted in favour of a directly elected mayor and 39,857 (39.6%) against with a turnout of 62.09%. 100,615. East End Life Online, ‘MP Rushanara makes history’, East End Life, 10 May 2010. 147 He is referring to Azad Ali, a civil servant who is also a leading activist with IFE. 148 Dispatches 149 M. Brooke, ‘Labour battle back on for Tower Hamlets candidate for mayor’, East London Advertiser, 26 July 2010.

Skin-deep democracy

I.III Influences from other groups and bodies

in areas where groups like IFE are actively seeking to influence politics need to be aware of such ‘entryist’ tactics, although it should be up to central and local party leadership to decide whether a response is required to such tactics and, if so, what that should be. I.III.II The impact of Islamist and conservative religious attitudes on Muslim candidates Tower Hamlets is an area where the revolutionary Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), which is committed to fomenting military coups in Muslim-majority countries and vehemently opposed to democracy and democratic values (see BOX 3), is active. Former Bethnal Green and Bow MP, Oona King, has described meeting with a young member of HT whilst campaigning before the 2005 election. She records him as saying: “[Y]ou have to change the whole system, everything. And until it changes I don’t want to work inside the system.”150

BOX 3: Hizb ut-Tahrir Hizb ut-Tahrir openly state that they believe democracy to be “kufr” (unbelief) and therefore tell Muslims not to become involved in democratic elections. For example, they published a leaflet in response to the 2010 elections in which Muslims were called on not to vote. “[I]n the forthcoming UK-parliamentary elections Muslims are being told to vote for people who would be part of lawmakers in Britain’s secular political system, whose root and branch is built upon man’s sovereignty, rather than that of Allah . This would clearly be haram [forbidden].”151 They also publicly target Muslims who have become involved in parliamentary democracy. For example, an article on HT’s website describes former MP Shahid Malik and Khalid Mahmood MP as “disgraced” and being “far away from their deen [faith] or principles.”152

One Asian Muslim PPC in East London recalled how the activities of Islamist groups such as HT impacted on his campaign.

150 O. King, 2007, p. 311. 151 Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘‘Elections 2010: Our Strength is in Islam and Unity’, Hizb ut-Tahrir, 1 April 2010. 152 Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘Muslim MPs: What good have they achieved?’, Hizb ut-Tahrir, 23 May 2009.

“More Muslims said they wouldn’t vote for me than whites. Most of these were Hizb ut-Tahrir [HT] or al-Muhajiroun members. For example, a hustings was organized in a church ahead of the 2005 election and hooded, bearded HT members came in and heckled me shouting ‘kaffir’ because a Muslim shouldn’t be part of the democratic system. HT also organized a public debate between all candidates ahead of the 2005 election but when I realized that it was HT who was behind it I pulled out. I only realized what was going on when they published the names of the panellists – they were all HT.” More subtle still are the pressures female Muslim politicians in particular come under. This has already been examined in Chapter One, Section II.III but this is an issue of particular relevance to Tower Hamlets. According to media reports, Shiria Khatun, a Labour councillor in Tower Hamlets, suffered an eighteen-month campaign of harassment including a telephone death threat in Sylheti (a dialect of Bengali) and

Skin-deep democracy

I.III Influences from other groups and bodies

threats to the safety of her children apparently because she wore ‘western’ clothing. She has since changed her clothing.153 Similarly, in 2009 fellow Muslim Councillor Rania Khan received hate mail after photos were distributed of her at an Eid party where she was not wearing a headscarf.154 It appears that some female Bangladeshis in Tower Hamlets are seriously discouraged from engaging in politics by unhelpful attitudes towards women within the local population. At the same time, Islamist groups are trying to discourage Muslim constituents from voting and are placing increased pressure on Muslim politicians, for example by heckling them at hustings. I.III.II Racialised attitudes amongst some Bangaladeshi residents Another external factor which influences political life in Tower Hamlets is the fact that, at times, some Bangladeshi residents have approached politics in a racialised manner, believing that their best democratic representation would come from an individual who shared their ethnic background. The scholar Sarah Glynn argues that Bangladeshis consequently tend to be less loyal to a specific political party than the rest of the population, describing them as a “community within mainstream politics”.155 Similarly, one local politician, a white member of the Conservative Party, objected that Bangladeshis in East London “often don’t want to engage with the system as it is” and therefore they do not necessarily engage with party politics in the same way as people of other ethnic backgrounds, for instance speaking only to fellow Bangladeshis. According to Glynn, an example of this phenomenon is the expectation that arose in 1997 that Labour would pander to these sentiments and select a Bangladeshi candidate in Bethnal Green and Bow. Instead, however, Oona King, a Jewish woman of mixed race, was selected. Glynn argues that this explains the 5.9% swing in Bethnal Green and Bow from Labour to the Conservatives in the 1997 election at a time when there was an 11.2% swing against the Conservatives nationally,156 not least because the Conservatives fielded a Bangladeshi candidate, Kabir Chowdhury.157 Certainly, in the 2005 election, the victory of the Respect Party’s George Galloway can be partly understood in reference to his pledge to stand aside after a single term to allow a Bangladeshi MP to be elected.158 Indeed, writing in 2010, Glynn argues that the huge population of Asians living in Tower Hamlets has had an enormous impact on campaigning tactics in the area – “[i]n Tower Hamlets, populism now means appealing to Muslims [ie Bangladeshi Muslim residents]”.159 The fact that Bangladeshis also have a high turnout rate is a major factor, identified by Jim Fitzpatrick MP as making them crucial to his campaign in Poplar and Limehouse in 2010.160 It is a marked failure of all the parties that, in Tower Hamlets, some Bangladeshis continue to engage politically as Bangladeshis rather than as citizens living in a diverse area – and there is evidence, as seen in Chapter One III.II, that parties pander to this sentiment using divisive propaganda. Whatever truth there is in the idea that some Bangladeshi individuals in Tower Hamlets are acting as a separate group within mainstream politics, the real danger comes from the perception that a particular ethnic group is subverting truly representative, democratic politics in the area, as Liberal Democrat PPC for Poplar and Limehouse, Jonathan Fryer, explained to ITV’s London Tonight. “The perception is that the council has favoured one group over another. In other words, that because it’s so Bengali-dominated, that Bengali organizations

“The perception is that the council has favoured one group over another. In other words, that because it’s so Bengali-dominated, that Bengali organizations have received more. Often that isn’t actually true, but that is a very dangerous perception to allow to happen”. 153 A. Taher, ‘Muslim councillor defies hate campaign after death threats over ‘western’ appearance’, Evening Standard, 8 March 2010. 154 E. Kvist, ‘Woman Muslim councillor defies death threat calls’, East London Advertiser, 9 March 2010. 155 S. Glynn, (2008), ‘East End Bengalis and the Labour Party—the end of a long relationship?’, New Geographies in Race and Racism, ed. Caroline Bressey and Claire Dwyer, (Ashgate: Aldershot), p. 69. 156 G. Evans, P. Norris, (1999), Critical Elections: British parties and voters in longterm perspective, (London: SAGE Publications), p. xxiv. 157 S. Glynn , 2008, p. 71. 158 S. Lister, S. O’Neill, G. Whittell, ‘Galloway sleeps on his victory after an incendiary campaign’, Times, 7 May 2005.

After being defeated in the 2010 election, Galloway claimed credit for the election of Britain’s first Bangladeshi MP:

“Our defeat of Oona King, which led to the election of a British Bangladeshi MP, is our achievement.”

J. Taylor, ‘Galloway looks on the bright side despite losing east London stronghold’, Independent, 14 May 2010.

159 S. Glynn, (2010), ‘Playing the Ethnic Card: Politics and Segregation in London’s East End’, Urban Studies, 47, p. 991. 160 D. Cohen, ‘Wedding fiasco has made it a very close match in Poplar’, London Evening Standard, 12 April 2010.

Skin-deep democracy

I.III Influences from other groups and bodies

have received more. Often that isn’t actually true, but that is a very dangerous perception to allow to happen.”161 Not only are such perceptions highly damaging to cohesion in Tower Hamlets, potentially bolstering far-right narratives of DERR individuals receiving preferential treatment, but it also encourages people of all backgrounds to approach politics along religious, racial or ethnic lines. This feeds into a circle which can be difficult to break: because some residents of Tower Hamlets identify along racial lines, the parties pander to these sentiments. The parties’ actions then encourage more and more residents of Tower Hamlets to identify along racial lines. This can potentially lead to fractures developing in society and undermine the representative ideal of British democracy that, regardless of their background, all constituents are represented by their MP.

Key issues in Tower Hamlets The parties appear to have a race-based approach to representation, with wards that have an above average DERR population overwhelmingly having mostly councillors from a DERR background, whereas wards with a slightly above average white population having disproportionately more white councillors than would be expected if the background of councillors broadly reflected that of the local population. Some politicians appear to focus on winning the support of individuals solely of a Muslim Bangladeshi background (who statistically are more likely to vote) rather than on reaching out to all individuals in the area equally, irrespective of their background. This risks dividing society in Tower Hamlets along racial and religious lines. Some politicians appear to have been happy to work with, and offer deals to, individuals within certain religious institutions, such as East London Mosque. In so doing, they hope to encourage these individuals to use their influence to mobilise a ‘bloc vote’ of support from people who pray at the mosque but this betrays the right of each voter to be treated as an individual rather than a member of an assumed-to-be-homogenous ‘bloc’. Serious allegations have been made about ‘entryism’ by the Islamist group ‘Islamic Forum Europe’. In essence, the allegation is that its members have joined Labour to attempt to gain power and influence for IFE through being elected into office as Labour representatives. Some Bangladeshis engage with politics as though they belong to a group separate from the rest of society and therefore do not engage with the interests of the wider community at heart. This led to an expectation in some quarters that the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in 1997 should have been Bangladeshi.

161 S. Harris, ‘Poplar and Limestone’, ITV London Tonight, ITV, 8 April 2010.

The actions of certain Islamist groups and some individuals from particularly conservative religious traditions both serve to discourage Muslims, and particularly Muslim women, from engaging in parliamentary politics.

Skin-deep democracy

II Case Study Two – Birmingham

II Case Study Two – Birmingham Birmingham is another area which, despite superficially appearing to be a successful model of integration, has serious problems just below the surface. For example, interviewees repeatedly identified several serious issues in Birmingham, such as ‘typecasting’ of candidates, attempts to mobilise voters along ethnic, clan, or religious lines and the impact of Islamist and religiously conservative views. These issues have helped to create a racialised and divisive underside to political life in the city which serves to limit the opportunities of DERR candidates. The potential consequence of this is to damage cohesion within the city by discouraging young residents from feeling as though they can influence politics through democratic channels. Not only does this perception of disenfranchisement threaten Birmingham’s stability but it also risks making young residents of Birmingham more prone to exploitation by extremist recruiters of all types. II.I Profile of Birmingham Currently under the control of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition administration, between 1984 and 2004 Birmingham’s city council was run by Labour, albeit as a minority administration from 2003 onwards.162 Labour has, therefore, long been the dominant force in politics in the city. Indeed, after the 2010 election, Labour MPs held eight of the city’s ten parliamentary seats; the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives held just one MP each. Central Birmingham is one of the most diverse regions outside the capital. According to the 2001 census, about 641,300 or 66% of the city’s residents consider themselves to be “White British”, as opposed to 87% nationally. This compares with the other large groups: Pakistani (104,000), Indian (56,000), Black Caribbean (48,000), White Irish (31,000) and Bangladeshi (21,000).163 Birmingham’s religious profile is similarly mixed; 59.1% said that their religion was Christianity, followed by Islam (14.3%), no religion (12.4%), Sikhism (2.9%), Hinduism (2.0%), Buddhism (0.3%) and Judaism (0.2%).164 This diversity is, however, concentrated in four constituencies in central Birmingham. The other six constituencies all have DERR populations of less than 20%.

162 P. Dale, ‘Tory and Lib-Dems in pact to run city’, Birmingham Post, 19 June 2004. 163 Birmingham City Council (2003), ‘Cultural Background: Ethnic and Religious Groups, Country of Birth’, (UK:HMSO), pp. 14-15. 164 Ibid, p. 57.

II.II Actions by political parties in Birmingham II.II.I ‘Typecasting’: Restricting DERR politicians to running in areas with large DERR populations One of the factors which impacts on the careers of DERR politicians in Birmingham is the trend which sees them running (almost) exclusively in areas with large DERR populations. For example, although seven out of the 30 PPCs from the three main parties (23.3%) in Birmingham in 2010 were DERR, they were spread across just three of the 10 constituencies.165 All three of these seats have non-white populations of 45% or more, whereas the remaining seats in Birmingham (none of which had DERR candidates running in them in 2010) all have white populations of 80% or higher.166 If the parties were to follow this pattern of only selecting DERR PPCs in constituency with a DERR population above 45% across the country then, according to population figures compiled by Operation Black Vote, DERR candidates would be contesting just 15 seats.167

165 These are Birmingham Perry Barr, Birmingham Ladywood and Birmingham Hodge Hill. 166 The constituency of Birmingham Hall Green is the only exception to this. It has a DERR population above 50%, but none of the major three parties fielded a DERR candidate there in 2010. The seats with above 80% of the population being white are Birmingham Erdington, Birmingham Yardley, Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham Selly Oak, Birmingham Northfield and Sutton Coldfield. 167 Operation Black Vote (2008), ‘How to Achieve Better BME Political Representation’, Annex A.

Skin-deep democracy

II.II Actions by political parties in Birmingham

“Some senior Labour members were against my selection, including the leader of the Labour group on the council, because they thought I would lose the seat. They believed that the Afro-Caribbean community wasn’t going to vote for an Asian, the Indian community wouldn’t vote for a Kashmiri and the white community was predominantly racist.”

168 These are Birmingham, Ladywood; Birmingham, Hall Green; Birmingham, Hodge Hill; Birmingham, Perry Barr and Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath. The candidates were (in 2001): Mahmood Chaudhry (Lib Dem – Ladywood), Punjab Singh (Lib Dem – Hall Green), Khalid Mahmood (Labour – Perry Barr), Qassim Afzal (Lib Dem – Sparkbrook and Small Heath) and Iftikhar Hussain (Conservative – Sparkbrook and Small Heath) and (in 2005): Ayoub Khan (Lib Dem – Ladywood), Deborah Thomas (Conservative – Hodge Hill), Khalid Mahmood (Labour – Perry Barr), Naweed Khan (Conservative – Perry Barr), Talib Hussain (Lib Dem – Sparkbrook and Small Heath), Sameer Mirza (Conservative – Sparkbrook and Small Heath) and Paul Uppal (Conservative – Yardley) 169 E. Andrews, ‘Labour Party embroiled in race row after candidate told she was ‘too white and Jewish’ to be selected’, Daily Mail, 28 April 2009.

It is also revealing to look at the PPCs historically selected to run in the 11 Birmingham seats which existed prior to 2010. Table 2: DERR PPCs in Birmingham since 2001 Year

Conservative

Labour

Liberal Total DERR PPCs DERR MPs Democrat elected

2001

5/33 (15.2%)

1/11 (9.1%)

2005

7/33 (18.1%)

1/11 (9.1%)

2010

7/30 (23.3%)

2/10 (20%)

It is particularly interesting to note where these PPCs were selected to run. Of the 11 Birmingham constituencies contested in 2001 and 2005, DERR candidates ran in just five; all of which were constituencies with high DERR populations.168 The only exception to this is Paul Uppal, who ran in Birmingham Yardley in 2005, a constituency whose DERR population is less than 20%. It would therefore seem that parties have historically only selected DERR PPCs in areas with high DERR populations. This suggests that DERR politicians in Birmingham, like those in other areas, face the challenge of being ‘typecast’ to run for particular seats where it is believed that their background will help in their efforts to get elected, an analysis supported by interviewees. For example, Qassim Afzal, a former Liberal Democrat PPC who was originally born and brought up in northern England, described being encouraged by an MP to stand in a Birmingham constituency with a high British Muslim population (predominantly of a Pakistani or Kashmiri background). “I was literally told, ‘we want you in Birmingham.’” Afzal attributed this advice to his DERR background being perceived as helping to appeal to the diverse make-up of the Birmingham constituency. On the other hand, Elaina Cohen, had the opposite experience as a prospective councillor in Birmingham, finding that her background negatively affected her political ambitions. She publically claimed that a Labour Councillor, Mahmood Hussain, refused to support her application for an inner-city ward and said to her: “[T]hey will not vote for someone who is white and Jewish. My Muslim members don’t want you because you are Jewish.”169 Cohen repeated these allegations in her interview for this report and commented that the “same mindset is in the Conservative Party”. As the former Conservative PPC for Rochdale in 2001, Cohen is well placed to comment. If true, this is a very serious case in which a politician was told by her fellow party members that her opportunities were limited because of her background. In this case, the fact that Cohen is white and Jewish worked against her because a local party member (and it is not clear what evidence, if any, he was acting on) thought that a largely Muslim electorate would not support a white, Jewish candidate. Similarly, Khalid Mahmood MP complained that his initial selection in Perry Barr was not supported by senior members of the local party, because they thought that his non-white background was not suited to that particular seat. Mahmood described the attitude of some senior Labour Party members who opposed selecting him as PPC as being racially-motivated. “Some senior Labour members were against my selection, including the leader of the Labour group on the council, because they thought I would lose the seat. They

Skin-deep democracy

II.II Actions by political parties in Birmingham

believed that the Afro-Caribbean community wasn’t going to vote for an Asian, the Indian community wouldn’t vote for a Kashmiri and the white community was predominantly racist. The view within the party is still, ‘oh, you can’t do it [be an Asian candidate] because they’re not all Asians or [be a black candidate] because they’re not all blacks.’ Since the seat [Perry Barr] is predominantly white not Asian, the party still feels I can’t win in spite of the lack of evidence to support this.” Mahmood also observed that some senior local members had a “very racist view of how the community was divided up.” Whilst these members would strongly rebut any accusation that they personally were racist, their defence that they did not want to select a DERR PPC because of the racism they expected to see from constituents is not satisfactory. This ‘typecasting’ is not simply a phenomenon that is being imposed on DERR candidates; some are limiting their own aspirations according to the ethnic make-up of an area. One Conservative PPC stated that constituents of a specific background (Pakistani Muslim) would not vote for him and therefore “[i]n that respect I am the wrong person for [the constituency]”. Another Conservative PPC described why he had previously applied to certain seats, including one in Birmingham. “I did some very careful research. I targeted seats with a higher DERR count knowing that here I would probably be more successful. I spent a lot of time researching the make-up of the community.” The consequences of such racialised (but not necessarily racist) attitudes are the restriction of DERR candidates in Birmingham to competing with other DERR candidates for a handful of seats – in effect, they are being denied the wider range of opportunities which are open to non-DERR candidates. For example, all DERR candidates in Birmingham in 2010 ran in just three – Labour-held – seats. In one of these seats, the incumbent Labour MP was Liam Byrne, who is not DERR. This means that, although the number of DERR MPs in Birmingham increased to two in 2010, the other five of the seven DERR PPCs in Birmingham were running in seats they had little to no chance of winning. The success of these two DERR MPs is, therefore, off-set by the rigidity of the situation else in Birmingham which prevented any other DERR PPCs from having a real chance of being elected, hardly a sign of equal opportunities for all candidates, regardless of their background. Selecting DERR PPCs for seats which a party has no hope of winning may improve the party’s image of being committed to diversifying, but does nothing to address the low number of DERR candidates being elected to Westminster. More importantly, however, such activities are symptomatic of an approach to politics which encourages DERR constituents to self-identify purely along racial or religious lines. This risks exacerbating the pre-existing problems related to race and religion in Birmingham and fundamentally betrays the principles of representative democracy. Furthermore, parties should clamp down strongly on any members who approach politics in this racialised way, even if it is justified in reference to the perceived attitudes of the electorate, as the end result is to unfairly deny certain individuals their right to equal opportunities in political life simply because of their background. There are also pragmatic reasons why parties should not adopt such tactics – a party attempting to attract voters with superficial gestures like selecting a candidate of the same ethnic background as many constituents could be successful in the short term, but it is unlikely to earn the loyalty of voters in the long term as other parties are just

“I did some very careful research. I targeted seats with a higher DERR count knowing that here I would probably be more successful. I spent a lot of time researching the makeup of the community.”

Skin-deep democracy

II.II Actions by political parties in Birmingham

“As regards the Ladywood controversy [...] I honestly believe that the Labour Party do rig votes.”

as able to field candidates of that ethnic profile. II.II.II Exacerbating tensions between DERR groups through party actions: The case of Ladywood: To gain a better understanding of the way in which the actions of the parties in Birmingham have exacerbated underlying racial and religious tensions in the city, this section will examine reactions to the contested selection of a Labour PPC in June 2008. In this selection, one black member of the local Labour party claimed, the Labour party “wanted a Pakistani woman for their own political reasons”. Whatever the truth is about this allegation, it is very concerning that this selection led to an increasingly racialised discourse about politics in Birmingham. Part of the explanation for why this selection process provoked such divisive reactions may be that the local party apparently decided to use an unofficial majority-DERR shortlist. According to one member of the Labour Party, the constituency chair of the Labour Party made a point of inviting DERR candidates to take part, giving out the message: “If you’re BME we really want to hear from you.” This could well have contributed to a feeling that different DERR groups in Ladywood were competing with each other to have an individual of their background selected as Labour PPC. This explanation appears particularly relevant as the two front-running candidates for selection (on an all-female shortlist) for Labour PPC were a Pakistanibackground woman, Shabana Mahmood, and Yvonne Mosquito, who is black. Mahmood was ultimately successful, but her selection was then contested by Mosquito and her supporters who alleged unfair treatment. According to a local party member, the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) spent six months investigating allegations of foul play surrounding Mahmood’s selection. It found that six people had voted who should not have, but that this number could not have affected the result, in effect ruling in Mahmood’s favour.170 Regardless of the results of this internal inquiry, the authors of this report found that allegations of foul play were still current amongst Labour party members in Birmingham. For example, a black member of the party believed that there had been “corruption” and another (white) member said: “As regards the Ladywood controversy [...] I honestly believe that the Labour Party do rig votes.” On the other hand, one Pakistani background Labour Party member placed the blame on the media for spreading “difficult and divisive” ideas such as the belief that because Ladywood has a large black population it should be represented by a black MP. Another example of such race-based analysis came from a senior black Christian leader in Birmingham, Bishop Joe Aldred of the Church of God and Prophecy, who complained that a black candidate had not been selected.

170 J. Walker, ‘Labour inquiry rules Shabana Mahmood as candidate for Ladywood’, Birmingham Post, 14 January 2009.

“Obviously I wish the person who has won well, but I and my colleagues at the Council of Black-Led Churches were very keen to see a black candidate for the Labour Party in Ladywood.” The events in Ladywood shows clearly how the parties’ actions, in this case Labour, can lead to an increasingly racialised discourse around politics which risks exacerbating pre-existing tensions between some Asian and some black people in Birmingham.

Skin-deep democracy

II.II Actions by political parties in Birmingham

Furthermore, the lack of faith that some Labour Party members showed in their own party risks percolating into the rest of society. In an area like Ladywood, suggestions of impropriety could exacerbate feelings of alienation from politics and, given the racialised tenor of the debate surrounding the Ladywood selection, could well have a larger impact on the political engagement of Ladywood’s large DERR population, particularly black constituents. II.II.III Politicians manipulating biradari and ‘bloc votes’ Whilst corrupt electoral practices threaten to weaken democracy in Birmingham, a number of prominent Birmingham politicians, including the Respect PPC for Birmingham Hall Green, Salma Yaqoob, have spoken out about the influence that biradari171 and other traditional South Asian clan structures have in the city. As examined in Chapter One III.I, PPCs who used biradari and family networks to mobilise voters risk, after the election, being ‘beholden’ to the individuals who helped them to be elected. Whilst some interviewees suggested that the influence of biradari networks on politics in Birmingham had decreased over the past decade, many suggested that religious and ethnic ‘bloc votes’ continue to have influence in the city. For example, one Asian PPC described the advantage of having a relatively ‘neutral’ background, and how his work on Kashmir was helpful in getting the ‘bloc vote’ from Kashmiris, particularly because he had no “tribal background” so was backed by “all tribes”. “I knew little about Kashmir when I first got involved in politics, but I have now written the party’s policy on Kashmir. But a word of warning – if you fail to promote their [Kashmiris’] peace cause for self determination, it can work against you. You must deliver on your promises to make Kashmir a (major) issue. It is a fact not an opinion that white politicians are using the issue of Kashmir to get votes. But it is not wise to do this because it can be volatile if you don’t do enough. For example, Roger Godsiff’s [Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green] majority declined because he promised to make Kashmir a priority for the party but never delivered so it actually worked against him in the long run.” A number of interviewees also discussed the idea of mosques being able to mobilize a ‘bloc vote’ whereby many of the people who pray there would vote, en masse, for a candidate favoured by that mosque. One interviewee, a Labour PPC, said “it’s ridiculous”, but then suggested that a very small number of mosques have some sway. Another PPC, a Muslim who stood for a party other than the main three, suggested that it was possible that a politician might be able to get a ‘bloc vote’ from a mosque if the imam of the mosque spoke about “general issues”, rather than religious matters, during the khutbah (Friday sermon) and then introduced a politician. However, this PPC also said that this is “dirty politics and I don’t play it”. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a politician visiting a mosque or any other religious establishment as a way to meet a wider range of voters. However, what is unacceptable is the attempt to mobilise a ‘bloc vote’ of support from a mosque by encouraging voters to synchronise their political and religious identities. Politicians who mobilise support by encouraging the development of ‘bloc votes’ based on clan structures or on shared religion or race are playing a very dangerous game. These tactics encourage voters to engage with politics along religious or racial lines and, even more worryingly, can encourage the balkanisation of society. In effect, such politics may encourage different DERR groups to view individuals of other

171 Biradari is also discussed in Case Study One: Tower Hamlets. Biradari is a traditional South Asian form of clan structure which, some interviewees claimed, continues to impact on politics amongst some British people of an Asian background.

Skin-deep democracy

II.III Influences from other groups and bodies

backgrounds as potential political rivals. The consequences of this are politically very severe indeed. II.III Influences from other groups and bodies II.III.I Islamism in Birmingham: Discouraging Muslims from voting In Birmingham, a city which has been identified by a leaked Government intelligence report as one of the UK’s hubs of extremist activity,172 it should not be a surprise that Islamist extremists have tried to influence the course of elections. Interviewees from all the main parties reported being targeted by Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) in Birmingham. Khalid Mahmood MP, for example, described how HT members are active in attending events and distributing leaflets to discourage Muslims from participating in elections. He was also heckled by HT members during hustings at Birmingham University. A Muslim Liberal Democrat interviewee described being called “kafir” (unbeliever) and “haram” (un-Islamic) by HT because of his involvement in parliamentary politics; HT considered him a “target that they tried to damage” causing “major, major problems” for the PPC and his campaign. A Conservative interviewee described candidates as needing “crocodile skin”, particularly Muslim candidates who are targeted by groups like HT and the BNP. He considered it particularly difficult for Muslim women because of the huge criticism they are likely to receive. In areas where groups have a malign influence on the democratic process, as HT do, parties and others in society should engage in challenging their ideology by promoting shared democratic values. Whilst local authorities and educational establishments may be better placed to engage in this, parties in areas like Birmingham, where antidemocratic extremists and others are active, should consider developing a strategy for encouraging people to become involved in democracy and a system for supporting Muslim politicians and others who will be targeted.

Key issues in Birmingham ‘Typecasting’ votes and candidates according to race and religion can lead to only white candidates running in most constituencies and DERR candidates running only in constituencies with above average DERR populations. Racialised assumptions about the electorate which suggest that DERR candidates will do better in certain constituencies than in others are worryingly common. A number of candidates are reported to have attempted to mobilise support in ‘blocs’, either through biradari systems or through religious institutions such as mosques or churches, defining certain voters by one aspect of their identity rather than treating each voter as an individual with a multi-faceted personality. Islamist groups, particularly Hizb ut-Tahrir, are actively trying to persuade Muslims in Birmingham not to exercise their right to vote. 172 S. Rayment, ‘Report identifies UK terrorist enclaves’, Telegraph, 8 November 2008.

Female Muslim candidates are particularly likely to be targeted by both Islamist and far-right groups.

Skin-deep democracy

III Case Study Three - the BNP and DERR political participation

III Case Study Three - the BNP and DERR political participation No enquiry into the representation and experiences of DERR candidates in British politics is complete without a subsidiary analysis of the rise of the British National Party (BNP) and the way in which the mainstream parties appear to have tried to respond to the BNP by adopting similarly divisive and even racist tactics. This section examines the ways in which the rise of the BNP in recent years has contributed to the difficulties faced by some DERR candidates in getting selected and elected and how the main parties have then responded, at times by appearing to imitate the BNP’s tactics. III.I The rise of the BNP: Within the contemporary political scene, the BNP have made concerted efforts to heavily sanitise their overtly racist traditional message in order to make the party more palatable to ordinary white voters. The party’s leader, Nick Griffin, is, however, clear on his perception of DERR individuals. According to him, a British Asian or a Black Briton can only ever be “civically British [...] not ethnically British”.173 BNP policies outlined in the party’s 2010 manifesto include deporting immigrants who arrived after 1997 as well as those deemed not ‘ethnically British’.174 The BNP’s inherent racism and prejudice is further evidenced by the party’s whites-only membership policy which was only revoked in March 2010, following a court ruling. In 2009, the BNP polled 6.9% of the national vote in the European elections and saw two candidates elected to the European Parliament.175 Prior to the 2010 general election, at local level council elections, there were 56 BNP councillors across the South East, the North West, Yorkshire, East of England, East Midlands, West Midlands and London.176 (There is a need to place this figure in perspective: they held only 56 seats out of a possible 22,000). In addition, at the 2008 London mayoral election, the party polled 5.2% of the vote and managed to secure one of the London Assembly’s 25 seats. At general elections, however, the BNP’s support has risen more slowly. In 2001 they polled 0.5% of the vote,177 in 2005 0.7% and in 2010 1.9%.178 Despite both media hype and this slow but steady increase in vote share, the BNP failed to secure a single seat in the general election of 2010, despite fielding 337 prospective parliamentary candidates — their largest number for any general election – this failure largely being a result of the ‘first past the post’ electoral system. Given the BNP’s increased share of the national vote at the last three consecutive elections and the election of two BNP MEPs, there is concern that their national presence has had a direct impact upon cross-party efforts to tackle under-representation. For example, it seems likely that the BNP (and other far-right parties, particularly the National Front) strategically fielded white candidates where the main parties fielded DERR candidates in order to try to win the support of white voters. Several DERR candidates who stood against BNP and other far-right candidates for seats in May 2010 suggested that their race was instrumental in the far-right party’s decision to target their constituency. In Maidstone and the Weald the National Front fielded a white PPC for the general election to challenge two DERR PPCs — the Conservative’s Helen Grant and Labour’s Rav Seeruthun. Rav Seeruthun said: “The National Front is a fascist party and given that both Helen Grant and I are from ethnic backgrounds I fear this is the reason they have put a candidate up.”179

173 BBC, ‘Nick Griffin on the Andrew Marr Show’, BBC News, 12 July 2009, 174 Ibid. 175 T. Castle, ‘BNP’s European poll success dismays main parties’, Reuters, 8 June 2009. 176 N. Farndale, ‘A ‘perfect storm’ for the BNP to make gains in the European elections?’, Telegraph, 16 May 2009. 177 BBC, ‘BNP sees increase in total votes’, BBC News, 6 May 2005. 178 BBC, ‘National Results after 650 of 650’, BBC News, 27 May 2010. 179 Your Maidstone News, ‘National Front stands candidate in Maidstone’, Your Maidstone News, 21 April 2010.

III.II Responding to the BNP: Mainstream parties pandering to prejudice

Skin-deep democracy

“Because I’m a black candidate standing in a high-profile seat, they have thought they [...] will try and stir it up.”

In Chippenham, a seat where 98% of the electorate is white, Conservative PPC Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones was challenged by a BNP candidate, Michael Simpkins. EmmanuelJones said he thought that his race was likely a key catalyst in the BNP’s decision to field a candidate:

“People will blame you for the BNP getting in.”

Clearly, then, the direct influence of the BNP should be a matter of real concern for all parties and their efforts to make Parliament better reflect the British public it represents. If DERR candidates do not receive necessary support to cope with the BNP and its malign influence then there is a risk that some DERR politicians may be discouraged from seeking election.

“Because I’m a black candidate standing in a high-profile seat, they have thought they [...] will try and stir it up.”180

III.II Responding to the BNP: Mainstream parties pandering to prejudice One of the most concerning consequences of the rise of the BNP and its apparent strategy of targeting DERR candidates has been the way in which some parties have pandered to prejudiced attitudes to try to defeat the BNP. One male DERR Conservative PPC reported that a senior party member in his constituency told him that if he ran as the party’s candidate, then he’d be responsible if the BNP gains ground, because he would lose the support of white voters. He was specifically told: “People will blame you for the BNP getting in.” Similarly, a DERR former Conservative PPC explained how within one Local Conservative Association (LCA) a senior local party official perceived the presence of the BNP as directly affecting the party’s chances of being elected. “The Chairman asked me to stand down because he had estimated I would lose the party a huge number of votes if I stood and that if the BNP got in, I would be responsible [because of my colour].”

180 N. Morris, J. Taylor, ‘BNP makes rare foray into the Shires’, Independent, 8 March 2008. 181 T. Helm, A. Asthana, ‘Tories ‘airbrushed’ ethnic minority candidates from campaign leaflets’, Guardian, 21 March 2010. 182 According to leaked BNP membership lists. Guardian Data Blog, ‘BNP membership where you live: constiuency [sic] by constituency’, Guardian, 19 October 2009. 183 L. Holloway, ‘Lammy calls for probe into councillor de-selections’, Operation Black Vote, 7 November 2009.

Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the Conservatives deliberately produced all-white campaign leaflets in East London despite several Conservative DERR candidates standing in the 2010 election.181 Whilst the Conservatives claimed the lack of DERR candidates on the literature was due to the publication being produced prior to the selection of those candidates, it is concerning that the party was still able to provide their names and contact details at the bottom of the literature. If this incident is as it appears, the Conservatives are pandering to the latent racial prejudices that have been exposed by the BNP in some areas, thereby realizing an ‘ethnic penalty’ in our political system and mainstreaming the BNP’s message. There is also evidence to suggest that the presence and pressure of the BNP in certain constituencies has directly resulted in the de-selection of sitting DERR councillors. In Barking and Dagenham until the 2010 election there were 11 BNP councillors and the area boasts a significant BNP membership base — in April 2009, Barking had 27 paying members whilst Dagenham had 37.182 It is within this context that Operation Black Vote raised concerns over a series of de-selections by constituency Labour parties of “long serving experienced Black councillors” in the London area.183 • In Haringey, Labour’s frontbench black councillor Brian Haley was deselected from a ward he had represented for 12 years whilst councillors Sheik Thompson and Jayanti Patel were also informed they could not stand again.

Skin-deep democracy

III.II Responding to the BNP: Mainstream parties pandering to prejudice

• In Waltham Forest, five serving Labour DERR councillors were deselected; Councillor Anna Mbachu, Shameem Highfield, Tarsem Bhogal, Elisabeth Davies and Milton Martin. This spate of de-selections was deemed so concerning that it prompted the Labour Party to suspend forthcoming selections. • In Lambeth, Betty Evans was deselected whilst Enfield’s councillor, Denise Headley, was prevented from standing for re-election – in both cases the candidates then defected to the Conservatives. • In Barking and Dagenham, Labour councillors Emmanuel Obasohan and Alok Agrawal were de-selected. This series of de-selections, all in areas known for their BNP presence, were condemned by the head of Labour’s Black and Minority Ethnic group (BAME), Ahmed Shahzad, who remarked: “I am very much concerned about it, and have received several complaints from grassroots organizations and several BME councillors. I have raised this with Number 10 and with the general secretary’s office.”184 Of course, it is impossible to state categorically that these de-selections of DERR councillors were solely racially-motivated or that it reflected party concerns about the threat of the BNP. However, there does appear to be a pattern of parties responding to the BNP’s racist campaigning by pandering to prejudice within the electorate, rather than trying to challenge and overcome it.

Key issues in relation to the BNP The BNP suffered some setbacks in 2010, particularly in local elections, but it received a larger share than ever before in the General Election. The BNP appear to have fielded candidates specifically to challenge and undermine DERR candidates, where they have been selected to run by the main parties. The main parties appear to have responded to the BNP by pandering to (perceived) prejudiced attitudes within the electorate.

184 Ibid.

Skin-deep democracy

Conclusion

Conclusion Every British citizen has an equal right to vote and be represented in Parliament. If they desire to do so, they also have the right to seek election to political office. Unfortunately, all three main political parties appear, at times, to have forgotten that these rights are absolute and are not dependent on a person’s race, religion or ethnicity. A political culture appears to have been allowed to develop whereby, at times, parties approach DERR citizens exclusively through the prism of their race, religion or ethnicity. In effect, the parties’ appear to be engaging with DERR individuals as though their identity, interests and concerns are all defined solely by their race, religion or ethnicity. Rather than being treated like their white peers, DERR politicians from all three major parties reported in interviews carried out for this report that they had encountered attitudes within their own parties that were, at best, worryingly racialised and, at worst, downright racist. Racialised attitudes included lazy assumptions about DERR candidates being best able to ‘represent’ areas where a large number of the constituents share their background (and not being able to ‘represent’ areas with largely white populations) and DERR politicians being ‘pigeon-holed’ as only able to address matters related to faith, race or ethnicity. Less common, but deeply troubling nonetheless, are the examples of outright racism, such as one DERR candidate being told “[p]eople like you clean toilets in Heathrow”. Insidiously, such racialised (and racist) attitudes are often justified in reference to alleged prejudice amongst the electorate. Even if the parties have reason to believe that constituents in one area are racist and will not support a DERR candidate, this should not be taken into account. A candidate must be selected on his/her individual merits. Legitimising such racialised tactics is, in effect, legitimising (indirect) racism. Party campaigning tactics have also contributed to an unhealthy racialisation (and religionisation) of British politics. In the quest for short-term electoral gains, all three parties have, at times, used divisive campaigning tactics which risk inflaming pre-existing racial or religious tensions. Such short sightedness and unprincipled behaviour could lead to instability in our inner cities and even facilitate exploitation of British youth by extremist recruiters of all types. The worrying attitudes and behaviour of all three parties reflect their failure to treat DERR citizens as citizens like any other. Instead, the parties have tended to essentialise DERR voters and politicians, viewing them solely through the prism of their race, religion or ethnicity. Whereas the parties have no difficulty in acknowledging the multiple identities and variegated opinions of white politicians and voters, they often assume that the identities and opinions of DERR politicians and voters will be shaped solely by their skin colour or religious beliefs. The parties have a moral duty to treat DERR politicians and voters exactly as they would any other individual. At present they are not doing so. Moreover, the current failure to ensure that everybody who wants to become involved in politics has an equal opportunity to do so, whatever their background, directly affects each individual’s right to effective political representation and, if they so desire, to seek election to political office.

Skin-deep democracy

Conclusion

These failures have serious implications for both national cohesion and security and must be addressed immediately. Otherwise, Westminster will remain entirely unreflective of Britainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population and DERR voters will continue to be encouraged to think of themselves as first and foremost members of a religious, racial or ethnic â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;blocâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, rather than as equal citizens within a diverse society. As has been shown by other research, this feeling of alienation and not having a stake in wider society can lead to serious tensions within inner city areas, potentially resulting, as it has before, in racial or religious violence. Similarly, these feelings can also feed into extremist narratives which suggest that DERR individuals are not, and cannot be, fully British. Such narratives help to push some young Muslims into the arms of Islamist extremists and some white youth into the arms of the BNP. To help the parties to address these serious concerns, the authors have provided a comprehensive list of recommendations which, if followed, will help to guarantee equal rights, opportunities and treatment for all, whatever their background.

Skin-deep democracy

Recommendations for Political Parties

Recommendations for Political Parties Drawing on the Speaker’s Conference’s Final Report (2010), the Councillors Commission’s ‘Improving the Representativeness of Councillors’ (2007), and Operation Black Vote’s (2008) research, these recommendations seek to add something new to the debate. They are aimed at political parties, but may also necessitate some action on the part of the Government. Similar to the Councillors Commission, the Government might consider establishing a Committee to monitor implementation of the Speaker’s Conference recommendations as well as those contained in this report. Immediate action required • Ensure greater transparency in the selection process. This must be aided by objective selection criteria against which candidates’ successes and failures can be substantiated. • Candidate selection must be made subject to anti-discrimination law. It is simply not acceptable for candidates to find their opportunities limited because their background (DERR or not) has led to them being ‘typecast’ as suited to running in certain seats and not in others. • All parties must sign up to a binding code of conduct for campaigning that regulates the behaviour of candidates as well as the content of their campaign materials. Campaigning that seeks to undermine a rival candidate by reference to his or her family life, racial background, sexual orientation, health status or disability is unacceptable. Similarly, this code of conduct must forbid marshalling of ‘bloc votes’ through manipulation of controversial and divisive issues or through courting figures with influence in sectarian, religious organisations or traditional South Asian clan structures. There must also be an enforcement mechanism for this code of conduct. • Parties must cease ‘pigeon-holing’ DERR politicians as spokesmen on issues that are perceived to be DERR-related. Any politicians with the desire and knowledge to speak out about complex faith-, religion- or ethnicity-related issues should be supported by their parties in doing so, even if they are not DERR themselves. Outreach/ Membership Drives • Develop a strategy for how to target a cross-section of population within constituencies, identifying individuals on the basis of their activism, their commitment to pluralism, secularism and democracy, and their concern with ‘common good’ issues. One way of achieving this might be to consider headhunting via university- and college-based student party branches. • Do not engage with divisive single-issue groups which claim to ‘represent’ all constituents of a certain religion, ethnicity or racial group. • Consider new ways of reaching out to DERR voters through community and voluntary organizations, particularly those involved in community-wide concerns. DERR voters could also be reached via local and non-English language media outlets, as well as new media such as blogs and social networking sites.

Skin-deep democracy

Recommendations for Political Parties

• DERR party activists should not be expected or required to aid the party in its efforts to reach out to DERR voters specifically. • Where membership applications are rejected or revoked, clear reasons must be given – there needs to be monitoring of membership suspensions at local level by party HQ. • Initiate a review of how the party to date has endeavoured to reach DERR groups and incorporate qualitative research into their experiences of this outreach, as well as seek out formal and informal feedback from those who have tried to get involved in politics. • Promote positive experiences of political engagement – i.e. improve the image of being an MP through showing how DERR MPs can and do stand up for the interests of all British citizens. Consider extending existing mentoring schemes to ensure that more young people can benefit from the experiences of existing MPs. Also consider an initiative similar to that of the Ethnic Minority Women Councillor’s Task Force. • Publish annual data on the composition of party membership, broken down by race, ethnicity, faith, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability and professional background as well as monitor the backgrounds of party officials recruited at all levels. • DERR-focused groups within the parties (e.g. BAME Labour) should challenge party concerns over DERR PPCs’ lack of appeal to the electorate by disseminating evidence to the contrary (e.g. studies, surveys etc). • Consider working with the UK Youth Parliament for lessons on how to engage with young people across ethnic, racial and religious divides. • Initiate an e-network for those local parties who are interested in sharing best practice, which would also increase exposure to a broader range of members as local parties move forward and refresh their memberships. • Where extremist groups are actively trying to influence politics, develop a system to ensure that party leadership are made aware of the risks of this. Parties should also develop a mechanism for how to respond to reports of Islamist infiltration of parties. This could involve the central party sharing information with local party branches about various Islamist groups and best practise for how to respond to Islamist messages and tactics. Where DERR candidates are being targeted by extremists, their parties should provide them with adequate material and moral support. Recruitment and selection • Devise and publicise criteria for candidates that are quantifiable and objectively measureable. There must be standardized qualities, skills and competencies against which all candidates are judged. Highly subjective criteria such as ‘influence among and over the electorate’, ‘popularity with voters’ and ‘standing in the community’ must also be defined. • In areas with larger than average support for racist far-right parties, avoid pandering to far-right rhetoric. Similarly, in areas with large DERR populations, avoid pandering to expectations that individuals within DERR groups may have for their ‘own’ representation.

Skin-deep democracy

Recommendations for Political Parties

• Positive selection measures permitted by the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 and now the Equality Act (2010) may override discrimination but are a short-term solution; only by broadening party membership through more targeted recruitment, and instituting cultural change at local party level, will there be sustained progress. • Train all local party selection committee members involved in the recruitment process, especially where an MP is stepping down and they have potentially not had to recruit in many years, according to the highest standards of professional recruitment. • Provide feedback to all unsuccessful applicants, in particular those who were shortlisted but failed to be selected. • Institute an appeals process so when a candidate feels discriminated against, s/he can discretely appeal a party’s decision. • Where regional bodies assume control of the selection process, clear reasons must be given for why this is. • Measure commitment to the party by devising questions that go to the heart of a party’s policies, as well as achievements for the party, rather than overemphasize time spent on party activities since many may have work and/or caring commitments. Campaigning • In addition to introducing a binding code of conduct for campaigning, guidelines should be produced by the parties for which groups and organisations can be engaged during the electoral campaign and which organisations they should avoid sharing a platform with or being hosted by. • Ensure that all campaign slogans, party lines and electoral promises are harmonized centrally, and ensure candidates assume a duty of care to all constituents in how they endeavour to win their votes. Under no circumstances should campaigning be on the basis of inflammatory or divisive issues. • Provide guidelines for party activists on how to deal with anti-secular and antidemocratic extremists when campaigning. Parties in areas where Islamists are active should consider developing a strategy to counter anti-democratic messages.

Skin-deep democracy

References

References Books/Journal Articles Ali, R., O’ Cinneide, C., (2002), Our House? Race and Representation in British Politics, (London: Institute for Public Policy Research). Anwar, M. (2009), Ethnic Minorities and Politics, (Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing). British National Party, (2010), ‘Democracy, Freedom, Culture, and Identity: British National Party General Elections Manifesto 2010’, (Welshpool: British National Party), <http://communications.bnp.org.uk/ge2010manifesto.pdf>. Department of Information Services, (2009), ‘Maiden Speeches 1979 Onwards’, House of Commons Library, 4 December 2009, <http://www.parliament.uk/documents/ commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04588.pdf>. Cook, C., Stevenson, J., (2000), The Longman companion to Britain since 1945, (Harlow: Pearson Education). Evans, G., Norris, P., (1999), Critical Elections: British parties and voters in long-term perspective, (London: SAGE Publications). Ford, R., Goodwin, M., (working paper), ‘Something Rotten in the Heartlands? Ethnic Competition, Working Class Disaffection and the BNP Challenge?’, (Manchester: University of Manchester), <http://www.dcern.org.uk/research/working_papers/ index.htm>. Glynn, S., (2008), ‘East End Bengalis and the Labour Party—the end of a long relationship?’, New Geographies in Race and Racism, ed. Caroline Bressey and Claire Dwyer, (Ashgate: Aldershot). Glynn, S., (2010), ‘Playing the Ethnic Card: Politics and Segregation in London’s East End’, Urban Studies, 47, 991. James, L. (2009), In Defence of British Muslims: A response to BNP racist propaganda, (London: Quilliam). King, O. (2007), The Oona King Diaries: House Music, (London: Bloomsbury Publishing). Kushner, T., (2006), ‘Great Britons: Immigration, History, and Modernity’, Histories and Memories: Migrants and Their History in Britain, ed. Kathy Burrell and Panikos Panayi, (London: I.B. Tauris). Malik, K. (2009), From Fatwa to Jihad, (London: Atlantic Books). Mawdudi, A.A. (1920), Jihad in Islam, originally published in Urdu. Saggar, S. (2001), ‘The Race Card, Again’, Parliamentary Affairs, 54, 4, 759-774. Shaw, E. (1988), Discipline and discord in the Labour Party: the politics of managerial control in the Labour Party, (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Sinno, A.H., Tatari, E., (2009), ‘Muslims in UK institutions: Effective Representation or Tokenism?’, Muslims in World Politics ed. A.H. Sinno, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).

Skin-deep democracy

References

Strawson, J., (2008), ‘Islam and the Politics of Terrorism: Aspects of the British Experience’, Fresh Perspectives on the War on Terror ed. Miriam Gani and Penelope Matthew, (Australia: ANU E Press).

Reports Birmingham City Council (2003), ‘Cultural Background: Ethnic and Religious Groups, Country of Birth’, (UK:HMSO). Campaign for Gender Balance - Liberal Democrats (2007), ‘The Diversity Fund: Steve Hitchins responds’, 25 January 2007, <http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-diversityfund-steve-hitchins-responds-469.html>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Commission for Racial Equality (2001), ‘Race for Election: Race Relations for Political Campaigners’. Department for Communities and Local Government (2007), ‘Representing the Future: The Report of the Councillors Commission’, <http://www.communities.gov. uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/583990.pdf>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. The Electoral Commission (2005), ‘Ethnic Minority Voters and Non-Voters at the 2005 British General Election’, <http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/ Publications/ethnic-minority-voters-and-non-voters.pdf >, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Faith Matters (2010), ‘The Adab: ‘Respect’ Research Programme’, <http://theprg. files.wordpress.com/2010/05/the-adab-respect-research-programme-final-020510. pdf>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Government Equalities Office/Fawcett Society (2008), ‘Ethnic Minority Women: Routes to Power’, <http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Routes%20to%20Power(2). pdf>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Gregorie, L. (2008), ‘OBV Profile: Adeela Shafi’, Operation Black Vote, 19 February 2008, <http://www.obv.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96 2&Itemid=122>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Home Office (2001), ‘Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team Chaired by Ted Cantle’, <http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/ documents/2001/12/11/communitycohesionreport.pdf>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Home Office (2010), ‘Channel: Supporting Individuals Vulnerable to Recruitment by Violent Extremists: A Guide for Local Partnerships’, March 2010. House of Commons (2009), ‘Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation)’, Session 2008-9, Volume II, Written Evidence, 27 May 2009. House of Commons (2010), ‘Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation)’, Final Report, 6 January 2010.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2008), ‘Purity of Elections in the UK: Causes for Concern’, <http://www.jrrt.org.uk/index.php?page=publication&showpublication= 2>, [accessed: 23 June 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

References

Operation Black Vote (2008), ‘How to Achieve Better BME Political Representation’, <http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/OBV%20Report%20-%2014-05-08.pdf>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Runnymede Trust (2004), ‘Realising the Vision: Progress and Further Challenges. The Reoport of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (2000) Revisited in 2004’, <http://www.runnymedetrust.org/publications/30/32.html>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. University of Manchester (2007), ‘Improving the Representativeness of Councillors’, December 2007, <http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/ pdf/584112.pdf>, [accessed 23 June 2010].

Media Articles/Press Releases Adhami, A., ‘The right to change one’s religion’, Islamic Forum Europe website, 1 November 2007, <http://islamicforumeurope.com/live/ife.php?doc=articleitem&ite mId=357>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Alibhai-Brown, Y., Henry, D.J., ‘Young, black and British: The young men who refuse to bow to the stereotypes’, Independent, 22 November 2008, <http://www. independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/young-black-and-british-the-young-menwho-refuse-to-bow-to-the-stereotypes-1026040.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Andrews, E., ‘Labour Party embroiled in race row after candidate told she was ‘too white and Jewish’ to be selected’, Daily Mail, 28 April 2009, <http://www.dailymail. co.uk/news/article-1174046/Labour-Party-embroiled-race-row-candidate-told-whiteJewish-selected.html >, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Armstrong, N., ‘’Black Farmer’ wants Chippenham-Entrepeneur Wilfred EmmanuelJones bids for UK constituency seat’, Gleaner, 30 March 2009, <http://www.jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20090330/lead/lead6.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Associated Press of Pakistan (2010), ‘Boundary changes cause of Shahid Malik’s defeat in UK polls’, Associated Press of Pakistan, 10 May 2010, <http://www.nation.com. pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Lahore/11-May-2010/ Boundary-changes-cause-of-Shahids-defeat-in-UK-polls>, [accessed: 25 June 2010]. Bath Chronicle Online, ‘Black Politician Refuses to Share Hustings with BNP’, Bath Chronicle, 26 February 2010, <http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/Black-politicianrefuses-share-hustings-BNP/article-1870106-detail/article.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. BBC, ‘Bethnal Green and Bow’, BBC News, 7 May 2010, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ shared/election2010/results/constituency/a26.stm>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. BBC, ‘Black Tory defends Archer’, BBC News, 10 August 1999, <http://news.bbc. co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/415994.stm>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. BBC, ‘BNP sees increase in total votes’, BBC News, 6 May 2005, <http://news.bbc. co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4519347.stm>, [accessed: 16 July 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

References

BBC, ‘David Mellor and Nadhim Zawhi on ethnic candidates’, BBC Daily Politics Show, 9 March 2010, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8557704. stm>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. BBC, ‘Hague Rebukes Tory MP Over Race’, BBC News, 28 March 2001, <http://news. bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1246591.stm>, [accessed: 23 June 2010] BBC, ‘How many ethnic minority MPs in the 2010 Parliament?’, BBC Daily Politics Show, 9 March 2010, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8557261. stm>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. BBC, ‘Labour keeps ‘most at risk’ seat Birmingham Edgbaston’, BBC News, 7 May 2010, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8666478. stm>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. BBC, ‘National Results after 650 of 650’, BBC News, 27 May 2010, <http://news.bbc. co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results>, [accessed: 16 July 2010]. BBC, ‘Nick Griffin on the Andrew Marr Show’, BBC News, 12 July 2009, <http://news. bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/8146456.stm>, [accessed: 28 June 2010]. BBC, ‘Poplar and Limehouse’, BBC News, 7 May 2010, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ shared/election2010/results/constituency/d56.stm>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. BBC, ‘Record number of new minority MPs’, BBC News, 10 May 2005, <http://news. bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4530293.stm>, [accessed: 6 July 2010]. BNP News, ‘BNP’s First Ethnic Minority Member Appointed Special Advisor on Islamic Extremism to Nick Griffin’, BNP News, 28 March 2010, <http://www.amren.com/ mtnews/archives/2010/03/bnps_first_ethn.php>, [accessed: 28 June 2010]. BNP News, ‘BNP parliamentary candidate stands against Tories first black MP in Windsor’, BNP News, 28 January 2010, <http://northfieldpatriot.blogspot. com/2010/01/bnp-parliamentary-candidate-stands.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. BNP News: Fightback, Comments, ‘Islamification of Britain Sparks Jump in AntiJewish Attacks’, BNP News, 8 February 2009, <http://www.truthtube.tv/play. php?vid=2784>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. BNP News , ‘Speaker wants parties to declare how many ethnic candidates they reject’, BNP Facebook page, <http://mk-mk.facebook.com/note.php?note_ id=185064912252>, [accessed: 26 August 2010]. BNP News, ‘The Islamic Colonisation of Britain Continues: Get Ready for Hijabs and Burkas in Parliament’, BNP News, 26 April 2009, <http://www.truthtube.tv/play. php?vid=2784>, [accessed: 3 May 2010]. BNP News, ‘More Television Appearances for BNP’s Chippenham Candidate’, UK General Election 2010, April 26 2010, <http://www.general-election-2010. co.uk/uk-party-political-news/more-television-appearances-for-bnp%E2%80%99schippenham-candidate>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Booth, R., ‘Rise in hate crime follows BNP council election victories’, Guardian, 15 January 2010, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/15/hate-crime-bnplocal-council-elections>, [accessed: 23 June 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

References

Brooke, M., ‘Labour battle back on for Tower Hamlets candidate for mayor’, East London Advertiser, 26 July 2010, <http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/ towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&t Brand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED26%20Jul%202010 %2019%3A24%3A04%3A097>, [accessed: 30 July 2010]. Brooke, M., ‘Labour HQ seizes local party’s crisis-hit selection process’, East London Advertiser, 13 June 2009, <http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/ content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category= news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED13 Jun 2009 02%3A18%3A23%3A930>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Bright, M., ‘A Barack Obama for Britain’, New Statesman, 8 January 2009, <http:// www.newstatesman.com/politics/2009/01/chuka-umunna-labour-obama>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Brockes, E., ‘Q: Did anti-semitism cost you the election? A: Definitely. There was Iraq, of course, but it was particularly being Jewish’, Guardian, 12 September 2005, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/sep/12/interviews.labour >, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Castle, T., ‘BNP’s European poll success dismays main parties’, Reuters, 8 June 2009, <http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE55727S20090608>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Channel 4 News, ‘BNP ‘exploited religious tensions’, Channel 4, 5 May 2010, <http:// www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/bnp+exploited+religious+tensions/3637122>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Chapman, H., ‘Parties still undermine Muslim candidates’, Muslim News, 29 April 2005, <http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=1938>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Chapman, H., Versi, A.J., ‘Muslim MPs double in number after UK elections—Muslim women and Muslim Tories elected for the first time’, Muslim News, 28 May 2010, <http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=4633>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Chippenham Conservative Association, ‘Why we refuse to give publicity to racial extremists’, Chippenham Conservative News, <http://wilfredej.com/2010/04/whywe-refuse-to-give-publicity-to-racial-extremists>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Cohen, D., ‘Wedding fiasco has made it a very close match in Poplar’, London Evening Standard, 12 April 2010, <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article23823655-wedding-fiasco-has-made-it-a-very-close-match-in-poplar.do>, [accessed: 28 June 2010]. Conservative Home, ’38 of the original 100 A-Listers are now MPs’, Conservative Home, 9 May 2010, <http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2010/05/38-ofthe-original-100-alisters-are-now-mps-.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Conservative Home, ‘Labour getting desperate in Hammersmith’, Conservative Home, 3 May 2010, <http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/05/labourgetting-desperate-in-hammersmith-.html?cid=6a00d83451b31c69e20134805bdefe 970c>, [accessed: 24 June 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

References

The Conservative Manifesto, ‘Invitation to Join the British Government’, <http://www. jim2win.eu/invitation-join-government-britain/>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Dale, I., ‘In Conversation with Ann Widdecombe’, Total Politics, <http://www. totalpolitics.com/magazine_detail.php?id=536>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Dale, P., ‘Church leader slams Labour selection process in Ladywood’, Birmingham Post, 10 June 2008, <http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2008/06/10/ church-leader-slams-labour-selection-process-in-ladywood-65233-21051331/>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Dale, P., ‘Tory and Lib-Dems in pact to run city’, Birmingham Post, 19 June 2004, <http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=1434 7502&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=tory-and-lib-dems-in-pact-to-run-cityname_page.html>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Dhanda, P. (2010), ‘Parmjit Dhanda, Labour’s candidate in Gloucester’, Progressive Online, <http://progressonline.org.uk/page.asp?p=5632>, [accessed: 25 June 2010]. Dodd, V., Chatterjee, N., ‘Tightrope walk in search of harmony’, Guardian, 24 April 2001, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/apr/24/race.immigrationpolicy1>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. East End Life Online, ‘MP Rushanara makes history’, East End Life, 10 May 2010, <http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/news/east_end_life/10_may/mp_rushanara_ makes_history.aspx>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. East London Advertiser Online, ‘Tower Hamlets Tories pick their MP hopeful for Bethnal Green and Bow’, East London Advertiser, 8 March 2010, <http://www. eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand =elaonline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid =WeED08 Mar 2010 13%3A59%3A35%3A010>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Electoral Commission, ‘New Research Findings About Rise in Non-Voting Habit and Postal Voting’, Electoral Commission, <http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ news-and-media/news-releases/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releasesreviews-and-research/new-research-findings-about-rise-in-non-voting-habit-andpostal-voting>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Farndale, N., ‘A ‘perfect storm’ for the BNP to make gains in the European elections?’, Telegraph, 16 May 2009, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/ politics/5335779/A-perfect-storm-for-the-BNP-to-make-gains-in-the-Europeanelections.html>, [accessed: 16 July 2010]. Fitzpatrick, J., ‘Victory Speech’, YouTube, 7 May 2010, <http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=L_tTdCnb56M>, [accessed: 26 August 2010]. Gledhill, R., ‘Boris Johnson urges non-Muslims to fast for a day in Ramadan’, Times, 5 September 2009, <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6822807. ece>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Goodwin, C., ‘If you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour’, New African, October 2004, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200410/ai_ n21358424/>, [accessed: 24 June 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

References

Guardian Data Blog, ‘BNP membership where you live: constiuency [sic] by constituency’, Guardian, 19 October 2009, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/ datablog/2009/oct/19/bnp-membership-list-constituency>, [accessed: 16 July 2010]. Guardian Online, ‘The Guardian Electoral Results’, Guardian, <http://www.guardian. co.uk/politics/general-election-2010>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Guardian Online, ‘Labour MP sparks race row after attacking Asian drug violence’, Guardian, 7 July 2002, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jul/07/uk.race>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Guardian Online, ‘Election results: Black politics ‘comes of age’ in Britain’, Guardian, 7 May 2010, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/07/election-reaultsblack-politics-britain>, [accessed: 2 July 2010]. Hamilton, F., ‘Sikh Rajinder Singh set to become BNP’s first non-white member’, Times, 21 November 2009, <http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/sikh-rajindersingh-set-to-become-bnp%E2%80%99s-first-non-white-member/>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Hansard Society, ‘’Yes, we can’ say British black and ethnic minorities’, 1 April 2009, Hansard Society, <http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/hansard_in_the_media/ archive/2009/04/01/yes-we-can-say-british-black-and-ethnic-minorities-april-1-2009. aspx>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Harker, J., ‘Liberal Democrat rise could push out black and Asian MPs’, Guardian, 23 April 2010, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/23/liberal-democrat-riseethnic-mps>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Harris, S., ‘Poplar and Limestone’, ITV London Tonight, 8 April 2010, <http://www. muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=4633>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Hassan, A., ‘New Generation of Prospective Parliamentary Candidates Reception and Photo Call’, Operation Black Vote, 25 March 2009, <http://www.obv.org.uk/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1269&Itemid=152>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Helm, T., Asthana, A., ‘Tories ‘airbrushed’ ethnic minority candidates from campaign leaflets’, Guardian, 21 March 2010, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/ mar/21/tories-airbrushed-ethnic-candidates-bnp>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Hill, A., Revill, J., ‘Racism rife in Commons, says MP’, Observer, 13 April 2008, <http:// www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/13/race.houseofcommons>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Hill, J., ‘MP Fitzpatrick: Don’t call me an Islamophobe’, Wharf, 14 October 2009, <http://www.wharf.co.uk/2009/10/mp-fitzpatrick-dont-call-me-an.html>, [accessed: 25 June 2010]. Hirsch, A., ‘General election 2010: If Britain is really post-racial, why is the election so white?’ Guardian, 27 April 2010, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/27/ election-race-equality-minority-candidates>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘‘Elections 2010: Our Strength is in Islam and Unity’, Hizb ut-Tahrir, 1 April 2010, <http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/leaflets/elections-2010-ourstrength-is-in-islam-and-unity.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

References

Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘Muslim MPs: What good have they achieved?’, Hizb ut-Tahrir, 23 May 2009, <http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/issues-explained/muslim-mps-whatgood-have-they-achieved.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Holloway, L., ‘Lammy calls for probe into councillor de-selections’, Operation Black Vote, 7 November 2009, <http://operationblackvote.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/ lammy-calls-for-probe-into-councillor-deselections/>, [accessed: 26 August 2010]. Inspired by Muhammad, ‘Press Release: Campaign launched as poll reveals most Britons link Islam with violence and extremism’, Inspired by Muhammad, 7 June 2010, <http://www.inspiredbymuhammad.com/press.php>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Islamic Forum Europe, ‘Statement in response to Dispatches programme, Islamic Forum Europe, 1 March 2010’, 2 March 2010, <http://www.islamicforumeurope. com/live/ife.php?doc=articleitem&itemId=462>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Jeory, T., ‘Galloway defector signs up to join Tory party’, East London Advertiser, 14 February 2008, <http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/search/story.aspx?brand=E LAOnline&category=News&itemid=WeED14+Feb+2008+14:33:40:697&tBrand=E LAOnline&tCategory=search>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Katwala, S., ‘The hunt for the British Obama’, New Statesman, 27 March 2008, <http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2008/03/minority-shortlists-british>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Khan, S., ‘Fairness, not favours, for Muslims’, Guardian, 17 September 2008, <http:// www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/17/religion.islam>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Kvist, E., ‘Woman Muslim councillor defies death threat calls’, East London Advertiser, 9 March 2010, <http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/ towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tB rand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED08+Mar+2010+18% 3A01%3A33%3A007>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Labour Party, ‘Fairer Britain, Your Choice’, Pendle Labour Party website, 28 May 2010 <http://www.pendlelabour.com/PDF/FairerBritainYourChoice.pdf>, [accessed: 26 August 2010]. The Latest News Online, ‘MP Says Don’t Call Me ‘Black’’, Latest, 24 January 2006, <http://www.the-latest.com/mp-says-dont-call-me-black>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Leroux, M., ‘Muslim councillor Hasina Khan: I will not let male bigots win’, Times, 3 July 2008, <http://europenews.dk/en/node/11820>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Liberal Democrats, ‘Liberal Democrats launch ‘New Generation’ of ethnic minority candidates with reception at Cowley Street on 30 June’, Liberal Democrats, 30 June 2009, <http://www.ethnic-minority.libdems.org/news/000036/liberal_democrats_ launch_new_generation_of_ethnic_minority_candidates_with_reception_at_cowley_ street_on_30_june.html>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Lister, S., O’Neill, S., Whittell, G., ‘Galloway sleeps on his victory after an incendiary campaign’, Times, 7 May 2005, <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/ elections/article519570.ece>, [accessed: 24 June 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

References

Luft, O., ‘‘Kill British’ blog man fails in MoS libel bid’, Press Gazette, 28 January 2010, <http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44965&c=1 >, [accessed: 30 July 2010]. Lydall, R., ‘Tower Hamlets accused of being infiltrated by Islamic extremists’, East London Advertiser, 1 March 2010, <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article23810835-tower-hamlets-accused-of-being-infiltrated-by-islamic-extremists.do>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Meikle, J., ‘Councillor found guilty of racial harassment over ‘coconut’ jibe’, Guardian, 28 June 2010, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/28/councillor-court-coconutjibe-bristol> [accessed: 29 June 2010]. Milmo, C., Hastings, R., ‘Police investigate electoral fraud claims after journalist is beaten up’, Independent, 5 May 2010, <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ uk/politics/police-investigate-electoral-fraud-claims-after-journalist-is-beaten-up1962536.html >, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Montgomerie, T., ‘John Maples declares re-opening of candidates list a “success”, Conservative Home, 21 November 2009, <http://conservativehome.blogs.com/ goldlist/2009/11/john-maples-declares-reopening-of-candidates-list-a-success. html>, [accessed: 24 June 2009]. Montgomerie, T., ‘Twenty people who would make excellent Conservative MPs’, Conservative Home, 20 September 2009, <http://conservativehome.blogs.com/ goldlist/2009/09/excellent-conservative-mps.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Morris, N., Taylor, J., ‘BNP makes rare foray into the Shires’, Independent, 8 March 2008, <http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/861/BNP-makes-rare-forayinto-the-shires-to-oppose-black-Tory-candidate>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Morrison, L., ‘Loanna Morrison: This “ghetto Tory” doesn’t care about the social background of the politicians caricatured as “Tory toffs”’, Conservative Home, 17 November 2009, <http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/11/loannamorrison-this-ghetto-tory-doesnt-care-about-the-social-background-of-thepoliticians-caricatu.html?no_prefetch=1>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. News Shopper Online, ‘LEWISHAM: Race advisor slams Lewisham over ‘apartheid system’’, News Shopper, 23 November 2009, <http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/ news/4754788.LEWISHAM__Race_advisor_slams_Lewisham_Labour_over__ apartheid_system_/ >, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Oliver, J., ‘Bid to deselect black candidate sparks Tory race row’, Times, 28 March 2010, <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7078862.ece>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Operation Black Vote, ‘OBV Exclusive: Brown’s Pitch to Black Communities’, Operation Black Vote, 26 April 2010, <http://www.obv.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content &task=view&id=1548&Itemid=156>, [accessed: 28 June 2010]. Pierce, A., ‘Mutiny of the faithful: Tears, mayhem and resignations - the scenes in a key Tory constituency that have rocked David Cameron’, Daily Mail, 13 February 2010, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250661/Mutiny-faithful-Tears-mayhemresignations--scenes-key-Tory-constituency-rocked-David-Cameron.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

References

Pink News Online, ‘Tory councillor suggests gay and black candidates are ‘there to tick boxes’’, Pink News, 15 February 2010, <http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/02/15/torycouncillor-suggests-gay-and-black-candidates-are-there-to-tick-boxes/>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Q News Online, ‘Constituency Watch’, Q News, April 2005, <http://www.q-news. co.uk/362-ConstituencyWatch.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Rayment, S., ‘Report identifies UK terrorist enclaves’, Telegraph, 8 November 2008, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/3406107/Reportidentifies-UK-terrorist-enclaves.html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Roberts, B., ‘Proof that Cameron’s Tories are as racist and sexist as ever’, Mirror, 2 January 2010, <http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/02/the-nastyparty-in-their-own-words-115875-21936181/>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Rosen, R., ‘Jewish Man Stands for BNP in Brent’, Jewish Chronicle, 29 April 2010, <http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/31159/jewish-man-stands-bnp-brent>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Sanghera, S., ‘‘I’m Labour, but I want the Conservative candidate Paul Uppal to win’, Times, 5 May 2010, <http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/ sathnamsanghera/article2500600.ece>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Sherman, J., ‘Police investigate ‘postal vote theft on massive scale’’, Times, 28 April 2006, <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article710570.ece>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Simpkins, M., ‘BNP: Silent Protest against Erosion of Democracy’, YouTube, March 2 2010, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyXPm4PijWY>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Singh, R., ‘Every Hindu and Sikh Should be Praising the BNP’, Guardian, 11 February 2010, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/11/bnp-nonwhites-memberssikh-join>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Taher, A., ‘Muslim councillor defies hate campaign after death threats over ‘western’ appearance’, London Evening Standard, 8 March 2010, <http://www.thisislondon. co.uk/standard/article-23812965-western-dress-led-to-death-threats.do>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Taher, A., Lydall, R., ‘Labour activist tells party’s new star: I ‘helped’ voters fill in postal ballots’, London Evening Standard, 4 September 2009, <http://www.thisislondon. co.uk/standard/article-23740214-labour-activist-tells-partys-new-star-i-helpedvoters-fill-in-postal-ballots.do>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Taylor, J., ‘Galloway looks on the bright side despite losing east London stronghold’, Independent, 14 May 2010, <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ galloway-looks-on-the-bright-side-despite-losing-east-london-stronghold-1973007. html>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Taylor, M., ‘BNP faces court case over membership rules’, Guardian, 24 August 2009, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/24/bnp-court-case-membershipdiscrimination>, [accessed: 24 June 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

References

Taylor, M., ‘BNP seeks to bury anti-semitism and gain Jewish voted in Islamophobic campaign’, Guardian, 10 April 2008, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/ apr/10/thefarright.race>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Thomas, D., ‘The BNP in Whitton’, Deborah4Twickenham website, 10 July 2007, <http://deborah4twickenham.com/blog/?p=82>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Times Online, ‘Jurisdiction to hear race discrimination claims’, Times, 27 November 2007, <http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article2951154. ece>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Travis, A., ‘Black and Asian people targeted in stop and search surge’, Guardian, 30 April 2009, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/30/black-asian-stop-searchpolice-terrorism>, [accessed: 27 July 2010]. Twinch, E., ‘BNP Pitting Muslims against Sikhs’, Inside Housing, <http://www. insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=6509787>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Walker, J., ‘Labour inquiry rules Shabana Mahmood as candidate for Ladywood’, Birmingham Post, 14 January 2009, <http://wotnews.co.uk/like/labour_inquiry_ rules_shabana_mahmood_as_candidate_for_ladywood/30895/>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Walker, J., ‘Postal ballot means Asian women miss out on vote, says Salma Yaqoob’, Birmingham Post, 20 May 2008, <http://www.birminghampost.net/news/2008/05/20/ postal-ballot-means-asian-women-miss-out-on-vote-says-salma-yaqoob-6523320934021/>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Waugh, P., ‘Doctor chosen as face of NHS defects to Tories’, London Evening Standard, 23 February 2010, <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23808921doctor-chosen-as-face-of-the-nhs-defects-to-tories.do>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Whitworth, D., Baldwin, T., ‘The fresh - and not so fresh - faces of the Tory diversity facelift’, Times, 25 February 2010, <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/ article7040116.ece>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Wingfield M., ‘Now is that bad advice or what?’, Martin Wingfield, 21 March 2008, <http://martinwingfield.blogspot.com/2008/03/now-is-that-bad-advice-or-what. html>, [accessed: 16 July 2010]. Yaqoob, S., ‘The women won it’, Guardian, 13 May 2006, <http://www.guardian. co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/13/womenwereattheheartofthe>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Your Maidstone News, ‘National Front stands candidate in Maidstone’, Your Maidstone News, 21 April 2010, <http://www.yourmaidstone.co.uk/kent-news/National-Frontstands-candidate-in-Maidstone-newsinkent35045.aspx>, [accessed: 16 July 2010]. Youtube, ‘Rising Star’, YouTube, 11 September 2008, <http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=2nABwdPXHGs>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Websites BAME Labour, ‘BAME Labour’s Aims and Objectives’, <http://www.bamelabour.org. uk/bame_labour_executive>, [accessed: 23 June, 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

References

BAME Labour, ‘Welcome from BAME Labour Chair Ahmad Shahzad’, <http://www. bamelabour.org.uk/>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. BBC Newsnight, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm>, [accessed: 24 June 2010]. Centre For Women and Democracy, <http://www.cfwd.org.uk/>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Fabian Society, ‘Ideas Pamphlets’, < http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/publications/ ideas-pamphlets/>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Institute for Public Policy Research, <www.ippr.org.uk>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Madano Partnership, <www.madano.com/view>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Office for National Statistics, <http://www.statistics.gov.uk/default.asp>, [accessed: 23 June 2010] Office for National Statistics, ‘Ethnic Group (KS06)—Area: Tower Hamlets, < http:// www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=27 6772&c=Tower+Hamlets&d=13&e=15&g=346968&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m =0&r=1&s=1276507490375&enc=1&dsFamilyId=47>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Parliamentary Business, ’20 October Speaker’s Conference’, <http://www. parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=4868>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. Tower Hamlets, ‘Elected Representatives’, <http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/ council_and_democracy/elected_representatives.aspx>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. UK House of Commons, <http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/>, [accessed: 23 June 2010]. UK Polling Report, <http://ukpollingreport.co.uk>, [accessed: 23 June 2010].

Skin-deep democracy

Appendix A: DERR MPs and PPCs (2010)

Appendix A: DERR MPs and PPCs (2010) Members of Parliament (27) (all) Labour Party (16) Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) - 1987 Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green & Bow) - 2010 Mark Hendrick (Preston) – 2000 (by-election) Sadiq Khan (Tooting) - 2005 David Lammy (Tottenham) – 2000 (by-election) Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham Perry Barr) - 2001 Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham Ladywood) – 2010 Lisa Nandy (Wigan) - 2010 Chinyelu Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne central) – 2010 Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) - 2010 Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) - 2010 Virendra Sharma (Ealing Southall) – 2007 (by-election) Marsha Singh (Bradford West) - 1997 Chuka Umunna (Streatham) - 2010 Keith Vaz (Leicester East) - 1987 Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) - 2010

Conservatives (11) Adam Afriyie (Windsor) - 2005 Rehman Chishti (Gillingham & Rainham) – 2010 Helen Grant (Maidstone & The Weald) - 2010 Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) - 2010 Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) - 2010 Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) - 2010 Priti Patel (Witham) - 2010 Alok Sharma (Reading West) - 2010 Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) - 2010 Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) – 2005 Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) - 2010

Skin-deep democracy

Appendix A: DERR MPs and PPCs (2010)

Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (new) Labour (43) Victor Agarwal (Swindon North) Abul Monsur Ohid Ahmed (West Suffolk) Junab Ali (Devizes) Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green & Bow) Catherine Isabel Arakelian (Chingford and Woodford) Aktar Beg (Romsey & Southampton North) Emily Benn (Worthing East & Shoreham) Oliver De Botton (Hitchin and Harpenden) David Bradley (Weston-Super-Mare) Bambos Charalambous (Enfield Southgate) Annajoy David Da-Bora (Scarborough and Whitby) Hardyal Dhindsa (Mid Derbyshire) Anthony Gajadharsingh (Chesham and Amersham) Sidharath Garg (Uxbridge & South Ruislip) Sam Gurney (Kensington) Amanjit Jhund (Windsor) Bhavna Joshi (Central Suffolk & North Ipswich) Maryam Khan (Bury North) Shafiqul Khan (Carshalton and Wallington) Sonia Klein (Ilford North) Hratche Koundarjian (Lewes) Alexander Hilton (Chelsea & Hilton) Ashiq Hussain (Aldridge-Brownhills) Bassam Mahfouz (Ealing Central and Acton) Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham Ladywood) Harinder Mann (Hertfordshire South West) Swatantra Nandanwar (Maldon) Lisa Nandy (Wigan) Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne central) Ayfer Orhan (Hemel Hempstead) Funda Pepperell (Basingstoke) Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) Mari Rees (Preseli Pembrokeshire)

Skin-deep democracy

Appendix A: DERR MPs and PPCs (2010)

Ash Rehal (Faversham and Mid-Kent) Neil Sabharwal (Herefordshire North) Tariq Sadiq (South Cambridgeshire) Naz Sarkar (Reading West) Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) Rav Seeruthun (Maidstone & the Weald) Manish Sood (North West Norfolk) Chuka Umunna (Streatham) Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) Greg Williams (West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine)

Liberal Democrats (45) Qassim Afzal (Manchester Gorton) Farid Ahmed (Walthamstow) Asghar Ali (Islwyn) Zulfiqar Ali (Stoke on Trent South) James Allie (Brent North) Afzal Anwar (Pendle) Ali Asghar (Leicester East) Aladdin Ayesh (Leicestershire South) Nigel Bakhai (Ealing Southall) Kevin Barron (Wellingborough) Alex Berhanu (Ilford North) Harrish Bisnauthsing (Grantham & Stamford) Columba Blango (Camberwell & Peckham) Nahid Boethe (Harrow East) Nasser Butt (Tooting) Aqila Choudhry (Leeds North East) Alexis Diouf (South Derbyshire) Merlene Emerson (Hammersmith ) Nader Fekri (Keighley) Parmjit Singh Gill (Leicester South) Karen Hamilton (Birmingham Perry Barr) Zuffar Haq (Harborough) Qurban Hussain (Luton South)

Skin-deep democracy

Appendix A: DERR MPs and PPCs (2010)

Gerry Jerome (Croydon North) Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Ladywood) Johar Khan (Enfield Southgate) Karrar Khan (Rushcliffe) Satnam Khalsa (Hayes & Harlington) Tariq Khan (Birmingham Hodge Hill) Joseph Lee (Greenwich & Woolwich) Philip Ling (Bromsgrove) Chris Lucas (Ealing North) Rabi Martins (Luton North) Ajmal Masroor (Bethnal Green & Bow) Shabnum Mustapha (Glasgow South) Joe Naitta (Derbyshire Dales) Alexander Payton (Havant) Farooq Qureshi (Leyton & Wanstead) Dave Raval (Hackney South and Shoreditch) Sanjay Samani (Angus) Anood al-Samerai (Ilford South) Shas Sheehan (Wimbledon) Murli Sinha (Walsall South) Munira Wilson (Feltham and Heston) Allan Siao Ming Witherick (Broxbourne) Conservatives (44) Kemi Adegoke (Dulwich and West Norwood) Annesley Abercorn (Hazel Grove) Itrat Ali (Makerfield) Richard Ali (Burnley) Kashif Ali (Oldham East and Saddleworth) Shazia Awan (Leigh) Shaun Bailey (Hammersmith) Rahoul Bhansali (Streatham) Norsheen Bhatti (Stoke on Trent Central) Rehman Chisti (Gillingham and Rainham) Mark Clarke (Tooting) Mudasir Dean (Rochdale)

Skin-deep democracy

Appendix A: DERR MPs and PPCs (2010)

Wilfred Emmanuelle-Jones (Chippenham) Kamran Ghafoor (Oldham West and Royton) Nusrat Ghani (Birmingham Ladywood) Helen Grant (Maidstone & The Weald) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Zahid Iqbal (Bradford West) Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) Seema Kennedy (Ashton Under Lyme) Hamira Khan (Glasgow East) Zakir Khan (Bethnal Green & Bow) Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) George Lee (Holborn and St Pancras) Neil Mahapatra (Sedgefield) Gagan Mohindra (North Tyneside) Loanna Morrison (Bermondsey and Southwark) Simon Nayyer (Hackney South and Shoreditch) Shailesh Parekh (Birmingham Hodge Hill) Jasbir Parmar (Warley) Harshadbhai Patel (Brent North) Priti Patel (Witham) Sohail Quershi (Bootle) Suhail Rahuja (Manchester Central) Sachin Rajput (Brent Central) Davena Rankin (Glasgow South) Mohammed Riaz (Bradford East) Adeela Shafi (Bristol East) Alok Sharma (Reading West) Gurcharan Singh (Ealing Southall) Deborah Thomas (Twickenham) Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) Kegang Wu (Liverpool Riverside) Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon)