Jones may be a bit of a plonker but nonetheless many of the things he says are true. Many places in England are unrecognisable from the places they were not even that long ago. Bradford certainly is. And it seems to be that the only people denying it have well paid jobs and live nowhere near the affected areas.
I suppose this thread's as good as any to get into immigration...
I read a very good article a few years back (2009-11 ish) that spent a lot of time analysing government decisions, local funding and immigration. It essentially showed that immigration in most areas in Britain had a neutral effect on employment in an area as many immigrants create their own work and often create work for others. It showed no positive impact from immigration but then it showed no real negatives either. It balanced everything from many NHS trusts being so reliant on immigrants that they would collapse immediately if they couldn't recruit them to the more negative sides of immigrant ghettos where you're only getting a job with an immigrant if you're an immigrant yourself.
The biggest impact on an area, and the one that politicians are happy to let the media ignore with the concentration on immigration, is central and local government funding decisions. The trend showed that governments tend to concentrate their investment on the marginal seats of the UK. For example, Thatcher invested a good bit in many of the dockyard areas that were Tory sympathetic but not safe seats while she let Liverpool and Glasgow wither away without almost a second glance. A navy friend of mine told me years ago that you know which government is in by whether Portsmouth or Rosyth and Clyde dockyards are getting refurbished. Same with the economic challenges of the 80s and early 90s, the Tories invested in regeneration for marginal places to help them stay in power but let the old mining communities in the north of England, Wales and Scotland die without a bean of investment. Blair did the same, marginal areas got investment, a telling example was in Scotland when the SNP were making good inroads into Labour heartlands, Labour made some strategic decisions on shipbuilding and maintenance contracts that helped shore up some wavering constituencies.
Gordon Brown just didn't get that quite as well as Thatcher, Major and Blair did and genuinely tried to be less selective about his government's investments. There are a good few seats lost in 2010 that could have easily been saved with even a bit of investment. Redcar is the biggest example, just a wee bit of love and help in the area and the anger towards the government's inaction may have been turned elsewhere.
If you live in an area where your MP is so secure that he doesn't even have to bother campaigning then your likelihood of getting government intervention or investment in your area is almost none. It's far easier for the government to let the nasty immigrants take all the flak for an area's degeneration when much of it can be targeted quite clearly at the government letting an area die because they couldn't care about it or its voters.