'We increasingly felt that an unexplored approach to closing disparity gaps was to examine the extent individuals and their communities could help themselves through their own agency, rather than wait for invisible external forces to assemble to do the job.' 2/2
Just two more points on this.
1. 'Helping themselves' is *not* an 'underexplored approach'. FFS.
2. If 'external forces' were more visible that might, who knows, be an improvement. FFS.
And another quote (from p.31):
'We suggest that pessimistic narratives about race have also been reinforced by a rise of identity politics, as old class divisions have lost traction. Well organised single-issue identity lobby groups also help to raise the volume...
...These organisations can do good work protecting the vulnerable, but they also tend to have a pessimism bias in their narratives to draw attention to their cause...
...And they tend to stress the ‘lived experience’ of the groups they seek to protect with less emphasis on objective data...
...It is not surprising therefore that mainstream public debate about race sensitises minorities to discrimination, but does less to highlight minority self-reliance and
resilience.' (Ends)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Late last night, I had a dream that I was given access to the work which is being done, deep in the bowels of Downing St, for the Brexit inquiry. I only remember snippets, but here goes... THREAD. 1/8
The conclusions have already been written. Teams (led by a respected cross-party group of members of the House of Lords (Hoey, Stuart, Hannan and Moylan were mentioned)) are now seeking out the evidence. 2/
Brexit is a triumph. Global Britain has been reborn. Our sovereignty has been regained. We have regulatory autonomy and unfettered trade. The Govt has worked day and night to deliver on the people's priorities, and must be celebrated. 3/
The first is directed towards those who have the chance to interrogate the Govt (media, MPs etc).
Try to explore their position on these sorts of issues - where do they stand on eg breaches of international law and the Ministerial Code, international COVID comparisons... 2/5
...free speech, the right to protest, cronyism, etc etc. How do Ministers etc seek to explain their position? Juxtapose what they said then with what they are saying now.
The double-standards and hypocrisy of the Govt and its outriders - on almost all fronts - is dizzying. I get that it is a deliberate strategy, but really struggle to understand how so many people are taken in.
Just a few examples... 1/7
The sanctity of international commitments, Treaties and contracts. If we are prepared to breach them when it suits us, how outraged can we really be when the EU, or China, or Russia, does the same? 2/7
The Ministerial Code. Breaches by Patel and Johnson are waved away. But breaches by Nicola Sturgeon are, it seems, in a different category. 3/7
In the Sarah Everard case, there is an emerging trope - criticising those who have 'politicised' her death, and intimating that the protests would not be welcomed by her family and friends.
There are a few things here worth unpicking. Thread. 1/9
First, I am not sure on what basis people are presuming to know what Sarah's family and friends are going through, and how they are reacting to the way things are unfolding. My guess is that they have a wide range of views and thoughts. 2/9
Second, it is worth distinguishing between the publicity which Sarah's death and the investigation into it is attracting; and the broader debate about womens' safety, the role of the police and the right to protest. 3/9