fearing violent retaliation. A 1977 survey by the University of Essex found that 8% of those polled were likely to vote for the Front, reflecting "strong support amongst the working class, the young and the poorly educated". This survey found that support was strongest in the East Midlands (10%), followed by London (8%), East Anglia (7%), the West Midlands (6%) and Yorkshire and Humberside (6%). A report published in 1980 instead found that Greater London and the West Midlands were the NF's greatest areas of support, together making up 48% of its national vote share. Determining that 71% of the NF's support came from men, this study also found a strong link to class, with 72% of NF supporters being working-class; it noted that support was "somewhat stronger among the skilled working class than among the semi- and unskilled workers." The 1980 study also examined views of the NF among the broader electorate, finding that 6% would "seriously consider" voting for the NF. Two-thirds of respondents believed that the NF stirred up racial tensions to advance its cause, 64% believed that there was a Nazi element to the party and 56% believed that the NF wanted Britain to become a dictatorship. Explanations Increasing levels of non-white immigration have been cited as an explanation for the NF's electoral growth in the 1970s. One argument was that areas with large non-white immigrant communities were most susceptible to NF support, and the higher the non-white population, the higher the resentment among local whites and the greater the support for the NF. An alternate explanation is that the NF did particularly well in areas where the non-white population was moderately sized; and whites turned to the NF because they feared that the local non-white population would grow, particularly if neighbouring areas already had large non-white populations. On examining voting data from the 1977 Greater London Council election, the political scientist Paul Whiteley argued that the NF's vote share was best explained by the "working-class authoritarianism" phenomenon examined in the United States by S. M. Lipset. Christopher Husbands instead believed that the "territorial sensitivity" prevalent in English working-class culture was key. He argued that the English working-class largely created personal identities based on their neighbourhood rather than their profession, leaving them susceptible to far-right appeals based on location rather than leftist ones based on workplace solidarity. He argued that there were parallels with the Netherlands,