New Politics Network: Survey suggests Conservatives 'did not play race card' in general election

Friday, 30, Sep 2005 12:00

The results of the largest ever literature survey carried out during a General Election lends credence to claims by the Conservative Party that it did not play the 'race card' in 2005's poll.

General Election 2005: What the Voters Saw provides a glimpse into how the level and quality of election campaigning varied from constituency to constituency. 313 volunteers in 223 constituencies recorded every contact they received from political parties during the election campaign. They collected 3,459 letters and leaflets as well as logging all doorstep contacts and telephone calls. The research was conducted in association with Dr Justin Fisher, Head of Politics and History at Brunel University.

Although the Conservative Party did mention immigration and asylum more than the other mainstream parties in its literature, the survey found that it did not significantly push the message more in more marginal seats. It also mentioned the issue less often than its other core issues of health, education and law and order.

The report also found that on immigration, the Conservative's standard line in its literature was not significantly different in overall tone to Labour's.

In his conclusion, Dr Justin Fisher writes:

"[The results of the survey] indicates that the party took a principled stance on the issue, rather than playing the 'race card' in tight electoral contests."

Commenting on these findings, Director of the New Politics Network Peter Facey said:

"We may not have liked the effect that lines such as 'It's not racist to impose limits on immigration' had on the overall debate, but ultimately the Conservatives were simply outlining their position, which is what the public expects political parties to do in elections. Their opponents either avoided the issue completely or took a similar stance; they are in no position to claim the moral high ground. Only the Green Party painted a positive image of immigration during the election campaign."

The report also found that while UKIP mentioned immigration and asylum more in its literature than the BNP, the tone of the two parties on the issues were notably different. UKIP took a similar line to the major parties by emphasising 'controlled immigration' while the BNP used much more emotive language, particularly regarding asylum seekers.

Peter Facey added:

"It is arguable that the negative tone of the debate between the major parties on immigration and asylum created more space for extremist views to be heard than would otherwise have been the case. If political parties are concerned about this, they need to make a more concerted effort to actively engage in the debate."