
So, why the great shock? Why the hand-wringing? It’s not as if they weren’t warned. Why all those metropolitan journos disembarking at Barnsley station on the 11.47 from King’s Cross and gingerly approaching the local Untermensch with a sort of disgusted awe: what is it about this ghastly place that resulted in 17 per cent of its benighted inhabitants voting for Hitler’s bastard offspring, the British National Party? It must be simply that they don’t like the local darkies, think that there are too many of them and, poor dumb creatures that they are, feel threatened. Not racist, as such; simply lacking an education.
But this approach to explaining the BNP — the geographical anomaly/thick northerners paradigm — is running out of fuel. Five years ago it seemed to work when the media could point to racial tension in Burnley (with its no-go areas for whites) and Oldham and Bradford; a reactive vote, spurred by dumb, inchoate anger. But not now, surely. Because it isn’t just Barnsley. It’s Coalville and Shepshed in Leicestershire, where there are comparatively few immigrants; Broxbourne in Hertfordshire, where there are close to none, and Doncaster, where the BNP scored 12 per cent.
The first act of Doncaster’s mayor was to withdraw council funding for a gay pride march — a decision which horrified the London media and political elite but which was, I suspect, supported by about 85 per cent of the British people. Why should local people fund a march by homosexuals telling everybody that they’re glad they are homosexuals? If they are that glad about it, can’t they pay for it themselves?
There’s the lesson: if you media monkeys want to find out why the BNP did so well, then forget Barnsley, Stoke and Rotherham and start probing the attitudes in Islington, Notting Hill and Westminster.

Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in