{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017857142857142856, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.25, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Incidence of Coloured Populations and Support for the National Front

Most explanations of variations in electoral support for the National Front involve some consideration of the importance of resentment and fear of coloured people among whites, the level of which is conditional upon the local incidence of coloured populations. Some writers, notably Harrop and Zimmerman and Whiteley, have suggested that National Front support, in so far as it can be explained by white ‘backlash’, may be considered as directly related to the relative size of the coloured population in different locales. Their argument is that, the higher the proportion of the population which is coloured, the greater the extent that their presence will be resented, and the higher the level of National Front support. Other commentators have advanced a rather different interpretation. Although agreeing that the National Front will do worst in areas with small or non-existent coloured populations, they argue that the party might do better in areas with moderate-sized coloured populations than in those with large ones. The existence of a moderate-sized coloured population, it is held, indicates that the area is ‘vulnerable’ to further migration or immigration, particularly where there are large coloured communities in neighbouring areas, and that whites may express their ‘exaggerated fears of the likely effects of immigrants moving in’ by supporting the National Front. These fears are regarded as being more important in mobilizing National Front support than the actuality of living in an area with a very large coloured population.