Be in no doubt about it: the threat of the British National Party is very real indeed. The level of their vote in the general election was no surprise to the local Labour Party, even if it was to outside commentators. At its root is a very longstanding hostility against British Asians based, in part, on prejudice and, in part, on a seething resentment against what is perceived to be their favourable treatment by the body politic at the expense of whites.

   In fact, the obstacles facing both the white and Asian communities are starkly similar. The bigotry is perpetuated by the very geographical separateness which causes talk of ‘white’ areas and ‘Paki’ areas and which crystalises the hostility, misunderstanding, myth and violence which flows from this horrible cocktail.

   What is to be done? We must propagate the fact that the Asians in towns like mine are British. This is the single killer fact which the BNP cannot answer and which their potential voters have to be made to come to terms with. If it is not, then the sick but simple policy of ‘repatriation’ becomes a legitimate answer in the minds of those so inclined.

   Second, William Hague struck a fertile vein when he said that many people felt unable to talk about race without being accused of racism. Whatever his real objective in making such statements, the facts are that thousands of my constituents, who would never vote Tory, agreed with him. This fear has kept the issue bottled up until the pressure valve eventually burst in the general election. Thank goodness it blew up in the ballot box. We saw what happened when it blew up in the streets.

   The left in Britain have wholly failed to make the case for the desperately needed help ethnic minorities need. We have taken the consent of the white underclass and many of the working and middle classes for granted, falling back on the implicit accusation of bigotry if they are questioned.

   We must, therefore, address the bread and butter policy issues out of which bad race relations grow. These are housing, education, youth services, and law and order. Good relations flow from getting these right, not the other way round. We cannot impose racial harmony just from an ethical starting point – it must grow from a social root.

   First, we must rid ourselves of sink estates and private ghettos. A person’s colour in Oldham can be determined by their postcode. But bulldozing is not the answer if we simply replace them with modern monsters of similar proportions. Education, too, must not be postcoded. Parental choice and good race relations are contradictions in terms. Apart from the physical, logistical and financial imperatives which dictate housing and education change of this proportion, they can only be achieved with the consent of the people, so these are probably twenty-year goals.

   Next is the woeful lack of things for youngsters, of whatever colour, to do. Well-meaning policies handed down for ethnic minorities do not work and worse, unless matched with similar policies for all youth, simply fuel the hostility.

   Most important is the real, and seen-to-be-real, enforcement of law and order. Thousands of white people believe that law and order is not applied equally. So, of course, do thousands of British Asian people. The answer is to pursue a policy against yobbishness – irrespective of colour.

    At its heart is the question of regeneration. Of course, this must be joined up and our macro policy is spot on. At the micro level we are scratching the surface. Wardens, estate managers, call them what you will, but unless there are community officers with executive powers over housing, social services, drug rehabilitation and policing then we will fail. We will fail because we will simply displace the problem. Bigotry grows out of disillusionment. The clock is ticking.

  Face soaked in blood in the middle of some of the worst race riots seen in this country, I awoke to the reality of 21st century Britain: not the tolerant, progressive society that I hoped we were becoming.

   Yet here is a Labour government more progressive than any other on issues of race and equality. It was a Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw, who initiated the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, from which an unprecedented agenda for change emerged. This led to a Race Relations Amendment Act that the Commission for Racial Equality could only have dreamed of prior to 1997.

   And then there are the words of the Prime Minister: ‘Not one high court judge; not one black chief constable or permanent secretary. Not one black army officer above the rank of colonel. And not one Asian either. Not a record of pride for the British establishment. Not a record of pride for the British parliament that there are so few black and Asian MPs. I am against positive discrimination. But there is no harm in reminding ourselves of how much negative discrimination there is.’

   Enough to warm the cockles of the hearts of all those who believe in fairness and justice. Surely these excellent words from government ministers, supported by powerful race legislation, would have ensured that we became the modern, multicultural, multi-faith democracy: a beacon to the world?

   Alas, it was not to be. Legislation has moved forward, leaving the battle for hearts and minds lagging. Public institutions have been clambering to confess that they are institutionally racist without really knowing what happens next. The new Race Relations Amendment Act will become the principal tool to enable them to squeeze institutional racism out of the system.

   Of course, our summer of discontent presents an opportunity for government to focus on a number of areas and thereby get closer to becoming that beacon.

   Successive governments’ posturing on immigration has, via the media, led to an unhealthy drip-drip effect, creating an environment where racism is near-legitimised provided it is targeted at asylum seekers and refugees – for the moment. A more considered and creative approach is required.

   We can longer divorce issues of immigration from those of race – the two are not mutually exclusive. We must continue the immigration debate, recognising that leading progressive and economic nations allow sensible immigration. Furthermore, demographic changes may necessitate an increase in labour supply that cannot be met domestically.

   Current anti-discrimination legislation does not cover faith, leaving religious denominations at the mercy of the BNP’s new strategy (unless you’re in Northern Ireland). Government must assess how to curb the BNP’s activities and its ability to infiltrate towns and cause unrest and disharmony. Freedom of speech is not an unqualified principle.

   Public institutions have failed to rebut the propaganda of the far–right, aided by an enthusiastic local press, leading to misinformation and racial tension – this cannot continue.

   Government needs to review housing policy. New developments must focus on a mix of housing tenure designed to create integrated and sustainable communities. Education policy needs to value parental choice without it leading to segregation. The National Curriculum needs to address a more diverse Britain; celebrating the history, cultures and the contributions of all its people, ensuring all children feel valued as citizens.

   On regeneration, government needs to move to a much more planned approach, prioritised by need. This cuts out unhealthy and unhelpful competition between neighbourhoods and clarifies where and when resources will become available. Government needs to be brave enough to fully utilise the positive action provisions enshrined in current legislation to make radical changes. Britain cannot afford to wait for evolution to take its course.