1987/06/01 by Anthony M. Messina · 1 citation
Social Sciences · Medicine · #Gender Politics and Representation #Social Policy and Reform Studies #Electoral Systems and Political Participation #Borough #Neglect #Ethnic group #White (mutation) #Ideology #Quarter (Canadian coin) #Population #White paper #Politics #Political economy #Representation (politics) #Demographic economics #Political science #Public administration #Competition (biology) #Sociology #Economics #Law #Demography #Geography #Medicine
paper · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1987.tb01885.x
openalex publication_date 1987/06/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
This article critically assesses claims that the Conservative and Labour Parties' neglect of Britain's non-white population is due to its relatively small size and/or its geographical concentration in ‘safe’, predominantly white, Labour constituencies. Rather, it is demonstrated that in the London Borough of Ealing, where non-whites comprise a quarter of the population and neither major party enjoys political predominance, a number of intra-party constraints (e.g. ideology) combine with electoral disincentives (e.g. addressing non-white demands could alienate whites in the handful of electorally marginal wards which decide the parliamentary balance) to impel both parties to neglect non-white interests.