We ignore the plight of white communities at our peril

Members of the public are voicing outrage at foreigners getting council houses as ministers vie to be toughest on asylum. It all makes for uneasy viewing.

Politicians know there’s public appetite for getting tough. And taking a hard line on foreigners seems to be losing its taboo.

But as the country is declared “full” and the shutters go down, one has to wonder if community cohesion can really develop in such hostile climes. After all, in my experience many Brits in localities where cohesion is needed the most make little distinction between newly arrived immigrants and settled non-white communities. Ignorance and hate-driven political extremists play a large part in provoking racist attitudes in some of these areas. But can we confidently conclude that white resentment towards “foreigners” in less cohesive communities is wholly attributable to their gullibility or bigotry?

Or could it be that public policy also has a case to answer? The truth is that on questions of race and public policy answers aren’t always black and white.

I visited Burnley just a year before the 2001 disturbances and was impressed. One housing association was already doing sterling work rehousing black and minority-ethnic residents in traditionally “white” neighbourhoods – well ahead of the community cohesion agenda. At the time, the local authority spoke proudly of its race equality policy. But the disturbances shortly after exposed less than healthy community relations. Clearly, balancing the needs of minority-ethnic residents with those of white residents in deprived communities requires enormous skill, courage and judgment.

But the public sector is process-driven and officers are more likely to be penalised than applauded for bravery and innovation.

Is white resentment of ‘foreigners’ always born of bigotry or does public policy also have a case to answer? The answers to questions on race and public policy aren’t always black and white

I spoke to one local authority officer at a recent conference who was working in an area where minority-ethnic residents were in a majority. BME communities were vocal, well organised and well represented locally but the diminishing participation of white residents was noticeable. Her complaint was the lack of support for redressing the balance by engaging more white residents. She felt an absence of policy support, coupled with the fear of being branded “racist”, made a fair and balanced community impossible.

The ethnic makeup of many inner-city neighbourhoods has changed significantly in recent years, but public policy has been slow to catch up. Wards and neighbourhoods of many major British towns and cities already have a majority of minority-ethnic residents, with entire cities, such as Birmingham, soon to follow suit. Such rapidly changing demographics should be up for discussion. Instead, we’ve created a dialogue vacuum that political extremists have been quick to fill. In disadvantaged areas some white communities have been left feeling disempowered and forgotten, yet forbidden from voicing this. For the average middle-income professional these perceptions of exclusion are far-fetched. But having spent the past four years between Bradford, Birmingham and Brent, I have to wonder.

Simply dismissing residents’ concerns as bigotry will prove counterproductive. In the absence of balanced debate, bad feeling doesn’t dissolve – it can boil over in the form of extreme views. Sadly, the Home Office’s recently published strategy for race equality and cohesion fails to address this issue in any depth. And good practice from Community Cohesion Pathfinders is hard to identify.

As a black woman, I know the vital importance of robust measures for tackling racism, exclusion and inequality and I know we still have a long way to go. But allowing a situation to develop where social policy ends up being written in the countdown to an election won’t be good for anyone.