This is an inaccurate, misleading and *entirely un-nuanced* claim about Keir Starmer's response to the Race Commission report. Disappointed to see @GoodwinMJ so over-simplify his nuanced response to the "nuanced report"
This is Starmer. "On the one hand there is an acknowledgement of the problems ... on the other hand, there is a reluctance to accept that that's structural". This is misdescribed by @GoodwinMJ as calling the British people racist. That is very *un-nuanced*
Here is Samir Shah of the Race Commission, saying that it does recognise institutional racism. (In the terms of the Matt Goodwin piece, we could now say the Race Commission is calling the British people racist by accepting the Macpherson definition)
One can definitely criticise tone & content of Lab MPs (eg KKK images) or other academic responses.

This is untrue factually of what Starmer

That "by extension" should be challenged. Its a hyper-polarising move, which simply misdescribes & closes down debate on systemic racism
Thread on the Systemic/Institutional racism debate.

Some talk radio or red-top columnists did go for "Macpherson called the British people racists" 20 years ago. But it's not possible to polemicise in that way & claim to be contributing to nuanced debate

Labour has important challenges on race. (So do the Conservatives, of a different kind). Should seek to find common ground.

Acknowledging structural factors is "by extension calling British people racist" is not something Straw & Blair (Macpherson) or Cameron, May govts thought.
Personally, I was surprised so few people (38%) say disagree, while 30% agree, when asked an unhelpfully binary question. (Strongly disagree/Strongly agree is smaller still)

Many people want a better, less binary and, yes, more nuanced debate please.

Just 17% of white British people 'strongly disagree' with Britain is systemically racist
(23% tend to disagree).
While 28% agree (8% strongly)

Just 17% of ethnic minorities "strongly agree" that it is systemically racist.
(26% more tend to agree).
26% disagree (10% strongly)
Prof Goodwin responds. He does not think it is misleading about Starmer (I disagree) and/or Labour/academics (OK, if want to conflate Starmer & Lewis) (& Prof Gopal too!). Lots of voters don't like Britain being called racist. (I agree)
Racism is a serious problem today has 77% support acc to @MiC_Global ... it is not a narrowly held view of people who think saying this is calling Britain racist

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Sunder Katwala

Sunder Katwala Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @sundersays

6 Apr
Calvin Robinson who likes the report says that he disagrees with the idea in the report that more representative police forces would be useful to race relations or policing.
He didn't actually make any argument about policing at all. He simply spoke about being opposed in general to noticing immutable characteristics, conflating not caring about the make-up of police forces with being fine with all male panels (making a slightly contradictory case)
On a purely meritocratic view, clear logic as to why make-up of a police force is a pretty useful indicator of meritocracy (if one takes any interest in whether slogan of equal opps is realised in practice). Calvin ignored that: spoke as if the only approach here could be quotas
Read 13 tweets
6 Apr
This is Samir Shah on what the Race Commission was trying to say about institutional racism (that it can exist/does exist). And Tony Sewell, the Chair, on what he thinks of the Commission's findings (that it is defined too loosely/they didn't find it)
Here is Maggie Aderin-Pocock saying there is racism, and terrible experiences of racism, but not systemic racism (now/anymore) and that they "didn't find" institutional racism. Though it may exist.
The Commission also says (collectively) "we have never said that racism does not exist in society or in institutions. We say the contrary: racism is real and we must do more to tackle it"
Read 23 tweets
5 Apr
Lots of people pointing out the Mayor does not have powers to act in this area.

Few people seemed to notice what Race Commission proposed about Class B drugs (partly as proposals were not part of media briefing; partly as may appeal more to report's critics than supporters)
Race Commission.
Recommendation 12. (Page 185)

A Commission recommending to Prime Minister that many Class B drugs possession cases should routinely come out of criminal justice system into public health would normally generate a headline or two?
A handful of think-tankers did notice this
Read 7 tweets
5 Apr
RIP Cheryl Gillan MP. She came into parliament in 1992, succeeding Ian Gilmour in Chesham and Amersham. She was part of what was then a record intake of 60 female MPs in 1992 out of 651 (and was one of 20 women among the 336 Conservative MPs elected)
That 1992 intake is, at the time, a moderate speeding up of incremental progress, to 9% of MPs being women having been < 5% before 1987. Image
From a 2021 perspective, 9% of MPs being women and 5% of Conservative MPs into the mid-1990s is strikingly low, while 1 in 3 is progress towards equal opportunities but still some way short. Image
Read 4 tweets
5 Apr
An "anti-woke" campaign generates national news coverage since it has the support of 300 rank and file members of the National Trust.(With 5.6 million National Trust members, 300,000 would be 5% of the membership. 300 is 0.005%) ImageImage
One good answer would be proper structured engagement with the membership (and good to do it too with potential members, eg from less represented groups). They could try do it with/on the BBC and let the Telegraph, with its inexhaustible appetite for this, be there too.
Read 5 tweets
5 Apr
Gammons v Fox ... the quite incredible, in every sense, UKIP candidate does have the early edge, based on his 2% to * lead in early polls. But the actor's higher profile means we should not rule out the underdog (underfox?!) in this eagerly anticipated battle
As the insurgent challenger here, the political campaigns textbook would suggest that the Fox should be challenging Gammons/Lord Wennington to a head to head debate?
I might put £1 on Fox > Gammons at 7/4
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!