It is generally accepted that George Galloway's unexpected win in the Bradford West by-election was largely due to his cynical exploitation of an impoverished and marginalised community. However, it is patronising to assume that Britain's Muslim population is so disengaged from the country's mainstream politics that the only language it understands is that of reactionary opportunists.
Because while it is true that Galloway's victory was an anomaly; that he probably would not have won, had he stood in any other constituency; that he has the young Pakistani Muslim population of Bradford to thank for reviving his political career; that his campaign gained momentum mainly thanks to clever use of internet technology, the bottom line is that the younger members of Britain's Muslim community - not just in areas where they have a heavy presence, but across the land - do not feel represented by the Labour Party.
The sense of victimhood that has been attributed to many of Galloway's supporters does not apply to us all, and indeed I am prepared to bet that while the politics of identity - be it religion or ethnicity - strikes a chord with some, many in Bradford West voted actively rather than reactively.
Of course this is partly due to Labour taking us into war with Iraq while it was in government, but equally it is because the party has failed British Muslims not only on many social and economic issues, but also because it is now apparent that it is not the party it once claimed.
There was a time was Labour was considered the natural choice for the majority of Britain's ethnic minorities. It was the party of the workers, and as most post-war migrants took up jobs reserved for those on the lowest rungs of society's ladder, there was little alternative but to forge alliances with whoever would represent them the best.
This blind loyalty came about partly due to Labour's perceived compassionate position on immigration But a closer look shows this to be far from the case. Labour claimed to oppose the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act which for the first time restricted entry into the UK by anyone from the former colonies. But it not repeal the Act when the it came into power in 1964, and in fact tightened immigration regulations further with its own 1968 Immigration Act.
Since then it has systematically curbed new immigrants' rights by introducing stringent asylum procedures, removing immigration appeal processes, making it harder to gain British citizenship and withdrawing access to state benefits.
So much for compassion.
The myth of working class solidarity has also been dispelled. During the 70s it became clear that the working class cause was not quite as colour-blind as it claimed to be. Substantial sections of indigenous Labour-voters openly despised their brown counterparts, blaming them for taking away their jobs and homes. Labour did little to counter this hostility.
What's more, the new immigrants from South Asia did not actually confirm to 'proud working class' ethos. We had aspirations, we were determined to better ourselves; we may have lived in council flats, but we dreamt of moving into the suburbs; we may have worked in restaurants and shops, but we actually wanted to own them; we may have attended inner-city state schools, but our sights were set on university. We were not comfortable in our working-class status; for us it was a transition, a mere phase before moving on to bigger, better things.
The party let down those who, for whatever reason, who did not realise their social and economic dreams. In all the years Labour was in power the streets of the East End of London were strewn with filth, many of the pupils who attended the local schools left with barely a grasp of English, over-crowding was as much of a problem as it ever had been and heroin abuse, prostitution and violent youth culture were rife. Other parts of the country with large ethnic populations, such as Slough, Bradford and Luton, also suffered from the same social ills.
Then came the Iraq war. That many British Muslims feel they can no longer support a party that took us to war on a deceit is well-documented. The introduction of draconian anti-terrorism laws and Tony Blair's incestuous allegiance with America did not help matters. Muslims no longer feel Labour can represent their interests here and abroad. This, of course, is precisely what Galloway has capitalised on.
For these reasons the younger generation has dissociated itself from the party of its parents' choice. My own late father was a loyal Labour supporter, and such my brothers and I naturally adopted his beliefs. But we have not voted for Labour for a number of years, and have no plans to do so in the future. My brothers and I are well-assimilated into mainstream society. We do not live in areas with a heavy Asian presence, we have decent jobs and a comfortable standard of living. If we feel this way towards party, my guess is so do many others, not just the unemployed and disenfranchised.
For too long, the Labour Party has relied on the ethnic vote with a detached arrogance that appears to have lasted to this day. The older generation may yet remain loyal, but they will not be around forever. Meanwhile, the rest of us are not quite so passive in our devotion. The way we see it, the party favoured by our fathers carries with it much shameful baggage and currently appears to be lacking in direction and has a weak leadership. The minority vote can make all the difference in national politics, so Labour can only ignore Britain's young Muslim population at its peril.