Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

All the reporting about it is spin. The report's published later today but the right wing media were provided with key lines to trail parts of it - apparently on the strict proviso that third parties weren't approached for comment before 0001 today.

From my understanding all we have so far is the lines the government was spinning last night and the response to the lines the government was spinning last night.

I don't think there's much point to articles until the report's been released.

Edit: Basically if there's a report being released in about an hour and a half's time and the government's released a lot of highly contentious lines to friendly media overnight - I think that might be bait.

[Tamas]

Full report is out.

The idea that all ethnic minority people suffer a common fate and a shared disadvantage is an anachronism.

Yet both the reality and the perception of unfairness matter. The nationwide BLM marches last year were catalysed by a shocking case of police brutality in the USA that resulted in the death of George Floyd. Many British citizens – particularly young adults – felt compelled to protest and call for change here too. The countries are different, and face different race-related challenges. But in some places in the UK, especially in Black inner-city communities, historical wrongs by the state and police have left a deep legacy of mistrust too.

We understand the idealism of those well-intentioned young people who have held on to, and amplified, this inter-generational mistrust. However, we also have to ask whether a narrative that claims nothing has changed for the better, and that the dominant feature of our society is institutional racism and white privilege, will achieve anything beyond alienating the decent centre ground – a centre ground which is occupied by people of all races and ethnicities.

I find calm condescension to be a very properly British way of being dismissive and racist. 

[garbon]

Full report is out.

The idea that all ethnic minority people suffer a common fate and a shared disadvantage is an anachronism.

Yet both the reality and the perception of unfairness matter. The nationwide BLM marches last year were catalysed by a shocking case of police brutality in the USA that resulted in the death of George Floyd. Many British citizens – particularly young adults – felt compelled to protest and call for change here too. The countries are different, and face different race-related challenges. But in some places in the UK, especially in Black inner-city communities, historical wrongs by the state and police have left a deep legacy of mistrust too.

We understand the idealism of those well-intentioned young people who have held on to, and amplified, this inter-generational mistrust. However, we also have to ask whether a narrative that claims nothing has changed for the better, and that the dominant feature of our society is institutional racism and white privilege, will achieve anything beyond alienating the decent centre ground – a centre ground which is occupied by people of all races and ethnicities.

I find calm condescension to be a very properly British way of being dismissive and racist. 

Cool, now Sheilbh will permit people to be dismissive of the findings.

[Josquius]

The idea that all ethnic minority people suffer a common fate and a shared disadvantage is an anachronism.

Ohhh I like what they did here.
"The idea that all ethnic minority people suffer a common fate"- look! Here's a rich Asian and a super succesful black lady. See. If you just work hard you can succeed in tolerant Britain. All it takes is one or two exceptions to rubbish the idea that racism is an issue.
"and a shared disadvantage"- lets just hide this far more valid example of anti-racist talking points here....

[The Larch]

As I just read on Twitter by a Cambridge scholar of Indian background, there's something bordering on the pathological about the British desire to be seen as an international beacon and a model to be followed.

[Sheilbh]

Cool, now Sheilbh will permit people to be dismissive of the findings.

From what I can see it's still being processed - I'm seeing lots of people tweeting as they're reading through and there are plenty of problems with it.

But we're all discussing the lines the government chose to publicise for PR/spin reasons and knew would cause controversy - a Guardian reporter on how this has been handled:

Peter Walker
@peterwalker99
An aside to No 10 race disparities report: the way it was released showed some pretty cynical news management. Full report is 264p, but they gave only a careful, 800w précis at 5pm yesterday. No reason given for late release; assume it was to limit time to gather responses.
The précis was also released under a really rare type of embargo called "no approach" - usually only used for things like Queen's honours etc. Means you can't gather any reaction before embargo time (midnight in this case). They wanted to avoid *any* response to day 1 coverage.
We just ignored the "no approach" aspect as it seemed weird to not ask expert groups about a major report in their own subject area, and cynical for government press officers to expect this. Here's the story from @aamnamohdin & me.
The full report, with its 264 pages and 24 recommendations, is out at 11.30am today. But by now it will be a "day 2" story for many outlets. Any subtleties or divergences from the No 10 narrative on race will get a lot less coverage. Media management job done.

I just think the media should refuse to play along - let the friendly press run their puff pieces but the Guardian, BBC etc should basically boycott snippets from a summary that have been released a day earlier than the report (especially if they're subject to restrictions) and then cover it once it's out like they would a court judgement.

The government knew that the lines they briefed would get everyone's attention for a day and get everyone focused on those bits of the report and that's what they want. For example despite the pre-briefing I actually think this is a pretty useful taxonomy - but I'd suggest that perhaps the outcomes in number 2 reflect/are the results of 3-5:

The Commission therefore proposes the following framework to distinguish between different forms of racial disparity and racism:
1. Explained racial disparities: this term should be used when there are persistent ethnic differential outcomes that can demonstrably be shown to be as a result of other factors such as geography, class or sex.
2.      Unexplained  racial  disparities:  persistent  differential  outcomes  for  ethnic  groups  with  no conclusive evidence about the causes. This applies to situations where a disparate outcome is identified, but there is no evidence as to what is causing it.
3. Institutional racism: applicable to an institution that is racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours in a single institution.
4. Systemic racism: this applies to interconnected organisations, or wider society, which exhibit racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours.
5.  Structural  racism:  to  describe  a  legacy  of  historic  racist  or  discriminatory  processes,  policies, attitudes or behaviours that continue to shape organisations and societies today.

[Tamas]

My quote was from the Guardian based on the full document AFAIK.

[Sheilbh]

Ohhh I like what they did here.
"The idea that all ethnic minority people suffer a common fate"- look! Here's a rich Asian and a super succesful black lady. See. If you just work hard you can succeed in tolerant Britain. All it takes is one or two exceptions to rubbish the idea that racism is an issue.

But again isn't this the point that I've seen loads of people complain about with BAME - it hides big differences:

Recognition  of  the  differences  between  groups  requires  a  new  and  more  granular  approach  to data and how it is collected and used. Too much data continues to be collected at the level of  the  'big  5'  ethnicity  classifications:  White,  Black,  Asian,  Mixed  and  Other,  which  in  some  instances merges together ethnic groups with vastly different experiences and outcomes.

We also need more sensitivity to differences within racial or ethnic groups, such as urban middle-class Gujaratis vs rural Mirpuri, which are arguably bigger than most differences between ethnic groups. There is also an urgent need for individual level data, and analysis that accounts for the many factors that come together to influence outcomes, such as age, class and region. The government's  new  Equality  Hub  data  project,  announced  in  December  2020,  should  ensure  that this new, multivariable approach becomes the standard for collecting and presenting data in a nuanced way.

The thing that strikes me is they keep on pointing out areas of racial disparity - such as the Windrush scandal - but then say it's not the result of institutional racism. So if it's not institutional racism but it results in disparity on the lines of races, was it deliberate racism by the Home Office?

Similarly from what I can see it points out the difference in stats between Black African and Black Caribbean communities - which is really striking and important. But there seems to be a lot of almost victim blaming of Black Caribbeans and stuff about single parents which is I get how that indicates that there is something other than direct racism - because it's unlikely that individuals or institutions are distinguishing between people with Guyanese or Ghanian heritage. But that just gets me back to structural racism - both the structural racism and legacy of slavery and Black Caribbean history, but also that Black Caribbean communities have been in the UK for longer so exposed to more structural racism here since the late 40s. Instead it feels like that's just put into the "unexplained racial disparities" bucket.

As I just read on Twitter by a Cambridge scholar of Indian background, there's something bordering on the pathological about the British desire to be seen as an international beacon and a model to be followed.

It's also an easy way of getting around the issue - because if racism is fundamentally a relative problem then you only need to be relatively less racist than other places to be doing okay (and while there is evidence of that in the European context - I think we're way behind the US). And I think it goes for negatives as well - a lot of the debate about education is entirely framed by international comparisons so why we should adopt the Swedish model or the Finnish model or the Singaporean model. New Labour used to want to increase health spending to the European average and then become a "leading" European country on health spending. If we're top half of the table we're doing well and a model even if that is actually failing millions of people in the UK - similarly if we're bottom half the goal is to move up the league table rather than care about the particular impact of the issue in the UK.

I think it avoids looking at or addressing the absolute numbers and the issues in the UK and, in a way, lowers ambition because the goal is only to do "relatively" well. And I wonder if part of it is from domestic politics. Under New Labour - and it's continued since then - there was a huge amount of government league tables produced for educations, schools, hospitals, care homes etc. The idea is if you don't have the data you can't fix the problem, but because of the way it was published there was gaming of the system and improving your position on the league table became the only goal/metric that mattered. So for a while there was a trend of schools excluding loads of kids to boost their exam success, because exclusions weren't in the league table.

[The Larch]

From the report:



The last sentence could be replaced by "Slavery was not that bad, innit?"

[Josquius]

Ohhh I like what they did here.
"The idea that all ethnic minority people suffer a common fate"- look! Here's a rich Asian and a super succesful black lady. See. If you just work hard you can succeed in tolerant Britain. All it takes is one or two exceptions to rubbish the idea that racism is an issue.

But again isn't this the point that I've seen loads of people complain about with BAME - it hides big differences:

Recognition  of  the  differences  between  groups  requires  a  new  and  more  granular  approach  to data and how it is collected and used. Too much data continues to be collected at the level of  the  'big  5'  ethnicity  classifications:  White,  Black,  Asian,  Mixed  and  Other,  which  in  some  instances merges together ethnic groups with vastly different experiences and outcomes.

We also need more sensitivity to differences within racial or ethnic groups, such as urban middle-class Gujaratis vs rural Mirpuri, which are arguably bigger than most differences between ethnic groups. There is also an urgent need for individual level data, and analysis that accounts for the many factors that come together to influence outcomes, such as age, class and region. The government's  new  Equality  Hub  data  project,  announced  in  December  2020,  should  ensure  that this new, multivariable approach becomes the standard for collecting and presenting data in a nuanced way.

The thing that strikes me is they keep on pointing out areas of racial disparity - such as the Windrush scandal - but then say it's not the result of institutional racism. So if it's not institutional racism but it results in disparity on the lines of races, was it deliberate racism by the Home Office?

Similarly from what I can see it points out the difference in stats between Black African and Black Caribbean communities - which is really striking and important. But there seems to be a lot of almost victim blaming of Black Caribbeans and stuff about single parents which is I get how that indicates that there is something other than direct racism - because it's unlikely that individuals or institutions are distinguishing between people with Guyanese or Ghanian heritage. But that just gets me back to structural racism - both the structural racism and legacy of slavery and Black Caribbean history, but also that Black Caribbean communities have been in the UK for longer so exposed to more structural racism here since the late 40s. Instead it feels like that's just put into the "unexplained racial disparities" bucket.

Is this race however?
I think its fair to say the Ugandan Gujaratis who came over in the 70s and the Punjabis mass imported for labour in the 50s and 60s are the same 'race'.
The difference in their success subsequently was less down to race and more class, education, region where they live, etc...
Both on a night out might run into the wrong person and get shouted at for being a fucking p*ki or the like however.

[Sheilbh]

Is this race however?
I think its fair to say the Ugandan Gujaratis who came over in the 70s and the Punjabis mass imported for labour in the 50s and 60s are the same 'race'.
The difference in their success subsequently was less down to race and more class, education, region where they live, etc...
Both on a night out might run into the wrong person and get shouted at for being a fucking p*ki or the like however.

That's very true.

But I think that they're also looking at ethnic disparities and even those big census categories ignore difference. So within Black African category there's a huge attainment gap between Nigerian and Ghanian-Brits v Congolese and Somali-Brits which suggests factors in addition to race such as class, education, region etc (and I think structural bigotry - for example Islamophobia possibly). But then black women of all ethnicities are significantly more likely to die in childbirth which suggests that race is a primary issue (the report mentions this but then ignores it because the NHS are doing work on it - not sure if that's true).

[Tamas]

From the report:



The last sentence could be replaced by "Slavery was not that bad, innit?"

"Sure you were grabbed from your home by some other tribe, sold to whites, hauled across the ocean like cattle then forced to do hard labor until you died, and your distant descendants are still often treated as second class people, but hey, a distinct culture developed out of all these centuries of misery, so in a way it's all worth it!"

[Sheilbh]

"Sure you were grabbed from your home by some other tribe, sold to whites, hauled across the ocean like cattle then forced to do hard labor until you died, and your distant descendants are still often treated as second class people, but hey, a distinct culture developed out of all these centuries of misery, so in a way it's all worth it!"

Yeah that is unbelievable.

There is a point that is nuanced and requires careful handling about agency and creolisation and the creation of Caribbean culture. But that is not it and it's not some sort of quid pro quo for the profit and suffering. It's more about what people did in that situation and in spite of the suffering and that it was often in opposition to the British - including slave rebellions (and the British terror of them).

From a curriculum side - I don't know about teaching the history a lot - but there's tonnes of writers that could be studied in this area: Derek Walcott, Jean Rhys, Andrea Levy, Marlon James. But none of that writing is about a relatively comfortable trade-off

Edit: Incidentally all of the 24 recommendations actually seem reasonably sensible. But they're wrapped in a report that, especially in the introduction/summary, is a bit inflammatory and on the back of government briefing the most controversial points. It's almost like they just want a few days of culture war arguments.

For example these are all conservative-inflected ideas but I think they're fairly reasonable:

Recommendation 1: Challenge racist and discriminatory actions
Fund the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to use its compliance, enforcement and litigation powers to challenge policies or practices that either cause significant and unjust racial disadvantage, or arise from racial discrimination.

Separately,  Government  should  consider  the  complex  issue  of  online  abuse  as  a  public  policy priority

Recommendation 2: Review the Care Quality Commission's (CQC) inspection process
Review  the  CQC's  approach  to  including  disparities  in  the  experiences,  progression  and  disciplinary actions taken against ethnic minority staff in their inspections of healthcare providers.

[...] Recommendation 4: Bridge divides and create partnerships between the police and communities
Develop a minimum standard framework for independently-chaired community 'Safeguarding Trust' groups that scrutinise and problem-solve alongside policing, and independently inspect forces against this minimum standard.

Recommendation 5: Improve training to provide police officers with practical skills to interact with communities
Develop  a  strategy  to  improve  the  efficacy  and  implementation  of  stop  and  search,  and  de-escalation training ensuring a consistent approach is taken by all police force areas [...]

Recommendation 9: Investigate what causes existing ethnic pay disparities
Require  publication  of  a  diagnosis  and  action  plan  for  organisations  who  choose  to  publish  ethnicity pay figures. These should set out the reasons why any disparities exist and what will be done to address them.

Recommendation 10: Improve understanding of the ethnicity pay gap in NHS England
Undertake a strategic review of the causes of disparate pay across NHS England and spell out the measures that might meaningfully address any disparities.

Recommendation 11: Establish an Office for Health Disparities
Establish  a  new  office  to  properly  target  health  disparities  in  the  UK,  focusing  on  research,  communications and expertise to reduce health inequalities across all groups

Recommendation 12: Prevent harm, reduce crime and divert young people away from the criminal justice system
Develop an evidence-based pilot that diverts offences of low-level Class B drug possession into public health services

There's lots of Review Recommends Further Reviews going on here. But if the government had any interest in race and these issues they would be trying to build a consensus around these recommendations. The entire purpose of this has been for the government's political purposes by getting a few days of culture war fighting

As has been pointed out elsewhere - if the government hadn't been pre-briefing this it's more than possible that the main news line from it would be Daily Mail splashing on government plans to legalise ketamine.

Edit: Also as I said earlier - I don't understand how you get to those recommendations if you're thinking institutional and structural racism isn't an issue?

[Richard Hakluyt]

There is a general offensive of conservative ideology at the moment in the UK. Jenrick and his department were pretty unsympathetic towards the Muslims in the Batley school row for instance https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/26/robert-jenrick-condemns-batley-school-protest-intimidation. The we have the Union flags proliferating all over the place..."look at me! I'm a patriot, look at my flags!". The mere existence of Priti Patel.

Interesting that the report bigs up class divides at the expense of race divides. I'm sure there is a lot of truth in this but again it is something that will particularly resonate with white lower-class supporters of the government.

[Sheilbh]

There is a general offensive of conservative ideology at the moment in the UK. Jenrick and his department were pretty unsympathetic towards the Muslims in the Batley school row for instance https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/26/robert-jenrick-condemns-batley-school-protest-intimidation. The we have the Union flags proliferating all over the place..."look at me! I'm a patriot, look at my flags!". The mere existence of Priti Patel.

I think it's almost government by clickbait - everything is about politics which is advanced by constant culture war bullshit. The more they spout it the more very online people on the left react against it. That becomes the story and it's a cycle.

What they're actually doing is almost never as inflammatory as how they describe it because they want a response - and then the bad things they are doing get under-scrutinised/not enough attention because everyone's time is spent on arguments (of the government's picking) about statues or the non-existence of institutional racism. It's all bad faith politics purely to provoke. Their dream is endless news cycles about Winston Churchill, while they do whatever they want.

Interesting that the report bigs up class divides at the expense of race divides. I'm sure there is a lot of truth in this but again it is something that will particularly resonate with white lower-class supporters of the government.

Also another justification for spending money on "levelling up". It's always annoying the extent to which Tories care about the working class when it can be used to distract from issues around race, but then don't care about the working class in any other context - or the non-white working class