1. Levels or Changes? Ethnic Context and the Political Demography of the UKIP Vote Eric Kaufmann, Birkbeck College e.kaufmann@bbk.ac.uke.kaufmann@bbk.ac.uk; twitter: @epkaufm; web: sneps.net;

2. Freely available (CPS website & http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/changing places)

3. Conceptual Question Political demography (Goldstone, Kaufmann and Toft 2012). Does demographic change matter for anti-immigration sentiment/voting? Do contact (i.e. Allport 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp 2006) or threat (ie Key 1949; Putnam 2007) effects predominate? Contextual Effects: I argue that established levels of local minority presence induce positive contact; changes in local minority presence induce threat Evidence for role of change (Hopkins 2010; Newman 2012; 2014; Abrajano & Hajnal 2015); also for contact (Oliver & Wong 2003; Bowyer 2008; Ha 2010) For both, see Kaufmann and Harris 2014 (Demos); 2015 (Comparative Political Studies)

4. Data: Understanding Society (UKHLS) DV: UKIP vote 4 waves, Jan. 2009-Jan.11; 2010-Jan.12; 2011-Jan.13; 2012-Jan.2014 40,000 per wave, longitudinal. Minority oversample. Attached to census data 1991-2001-2011 (LA and ward) Question on party support and party who ‘would vote for’, asked alternate years ‘Other’ party with write-in categories, underestimate of UKIP (6.3% for wave 4 [2012-14] sample) 2091 UKIP person-years out of approx. 130k White British person-year responses to the 2 party support questions Analysis limited to White British respondents only

5. All minorityVisible minorityWhite 'Other' 2011 wave (ref 2010 wave) -0.347*** (.077) -0.349*** (.077) -0.348*** (.077) 2012 wave (ref 2010 wave) -0.107 (.075) -0.110 (.075) -0.108 (.075) 2013 wave (ref 2010 wave) 0.676*** (.073) 0.673*** (.073) 0.669*** (.073) age 0.028*** (.002) 0.027*** (.002) 0.028*** (.002) female -0.708*** (.064) -0.708*** (.064) -0.707*** (.064) education -0.004*** (.001) -0.004*** (.001) -0.004*** (.001) income -0.000*** (.000) -0.000*** (.000) -0.000*** (.000) minority increase 2001-11 0.015** (.005) minority % 2001 -0.016*** (.004) visible minority increase 2001-11 0.018** (.006) visible minority % 2001 -0.013*** (.004) white 'other' increase 2001-11 0.032* (.013) white 'other' % 2001 -2.392 (1.244) constant -4.459*** (.150) -4.440*** (.151) -4.448*** (.150) N128144128306128144 Individuals465154652846515 Pseudo R 2 0.05640.05620.0559

7. Models Predicting Mobility (White British Respondents Only), 2009-14 ‘White Flight’‘White Avoidance’ Logistic regression predicting move out of ward (OLS with robust std. errors) GLS linear regression predicting increase in minority share in ward due to move Mover (lag).791 (.063)*** Minority population share in ward (lag).003 (.001)*-.372 (.012)*** UKIP supporter (lag)-.074 (.196)-.877 (4.109) UKIP supporter x Minority population share (lag).004 (.008).363 (.421) Pseudo R 2 /R 2.130.472 N77,9503868 Groups34,3273365 The following controls were added to model 1 but not shown in the regression table: population density in ward (lagged), share unemployed in ward (lagged), age, highest qualification (lagged), marital status (lagged), income (lagged) and housing tenure (lagged). The following controls were added to model 2 but not shown in the regression table: change in ward share unemployed, change in ward population density, age, highest qualification (lagged), marital status (lagged), income (lagged) and housing tenure (lagged).

8. Source: BHPS 1991-2008; UKLHLS 2009-2012

10. Data: British Election Study 2015 Internet Panel (BES) waves 1-2 DV: reported UKIP vote in 2014 European elections Data collected in 2014 N = 24,000, of which 21,660 White British and 5,348 voted UKIP (24.7 %, bit low) Attached to LA-level census data 2011 No ward data available Question on reported 2014 European election vote

13. . Source: Census of England and Wales 1991-2011.

15. Data: Citizenship Surveys (Home Office), 2009-10, 2010-11 N=31,670. White UK-born = 16,300. DV: immigration opinion

16. Predictors of White UK-born Opposition to immigration reducereduce a lot age 0.112*** (.015) 0.172*** (.013) female 0.019 (.042) -0.009 (.033) no qualifications 0.491*** (.066) 0.585*** (.051) ward minority % (2011) -0.025*** (.003) -0.026*** (.003) ward deprivation (2011) 0.062*** (.016) 0.111*** (.015) ward urban/rural (2011) 0.064 (.055) -0.077 (.053) ward minority change % (2001-11) 0.026*** (.007) 0.027** (.009) constant 0.884*** (.123) -0.296* (.114) N15097 Pseudo R20.0220.032

19. Data: Local Election results 2010-12 DV: UKIP vote Share; BNP vote share Ethnic Change and local election vote for BNP and UKIP, 2010-12

20. BNP voteUKIP vote % minority 2001 -0.124* (.049) -0.059* (.023) minority change 2001-11 0.188** (.066) -0.049 (.035) total population 0.000* (.000) 0.000*** (.000) % working class 0.214*** (.031) 0.218*** (.035) % elderly -0.228*** (.054) 0.120* (.058) constant 8.498*** (1.758) 5.143** (1.845) N704945 R20.3040.230 UKIP and BNP Local Election Results 2010-12 (ward)

21. Source: Ipsos MORI, 'Attitudes to Immigration' (forthcoming). Issues Index question: “What do you see as the most/other important issues facing Britain today?”. Issues Index base: representative sample of c.1,000 British adults age 18+ each month, interviewed face-to-face in home. Home Office statistics based on ‘Year ending’.

22. Conclusion Established, high local minority levels predict reduced white British opposition to immigration and lower UKIP voting Local minority changes predict increased white British opposition to immigration and higher UKIP voting Selection effects, i.e. ‘white flight’, are NOT playing a role Changes fade, levels gain power, leading to local inter-ethnic accommodation Different dynamics at lower and higher contexts: Local minority change reduces threat over decades, national increase heightens threat. District change unclear, but many studies show threat effects. Demography matters – not just locally, but nationally – where it influences salience of immigration issue

23. Freely available (CPS website & http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/changing places)

25. White British% x WB avg. age x WB avg. qualifications x WB avg. share English Identity UKIP share of the vote in 2014 European elections