Scrutable

To their credit Conservative MPs are a diverse lot. Labour just gives us white men as leaders, Conservatives have given us the first two women PMs and will now quite possibly produce the first non-white PM. Or indeed non-human if it's Gove.

There's Sunak, Javid, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel, Badenoch, Kwarteng and Chishti.

But is it going to cost them? If it's a tight contest between the final two, will racists among the elderly Tory membership swing it towards a white candidate?

At the last election the persona of "Boris" won a lot of the racists. About 20 MPs each general election win with a majority of <1,000, so 500 racists voting against their local Tory thanks to a non-white leader is enough to have a noticeable impact.

Presumably there are many casual racists who aren't racist enough to swap their votes. But 500 votes out of 50,000 voters in a constituency is only 1%, which seems to be on the low side for the number of passionate racists.

This research
https://natcen.ac.uk/news-media/press-r ... n-britain/
says 26% of Brits admit to being at least a bit racist and 18% agree that "some races or ethnic groups are born less intelligent". The vaguer racist statement of "some races are naturally harder working" got 44%.

And it says 33% of Conservative party supporters described themselves as racially prejudiced, compared to 18% of Labour supporters, with 34% of Leave voters and 18% of Remain.

There are lots of studies on job recruitment or renting houses, establishing clear proof that applications from "non-white" names are statistically significantly less successful. The same has to apply to support for politicians and Prime Ministers. "Traditional voters" is often the euphemism used when discussing a non-white candidate to stand in a constituency, along the lines of "we like X but perhaps X will not appeal to traditional Labour voters..." The only evidence I've heard about is the "Diane Abbott got 45% of the online abuse" kind of analysis. It would be awful to see Prime Minister Badenoch get that level of hatred.

We all want the Tories booted out of government. But it would be grim if what pushes Starmer & Co over the line is a bunch of votes from right wing Leave voting racists.

Max hastings, who wrote so perceptively about Johnson in 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ty-britain

pointed out in May that the candidates have to survive Tory party members first

A northern Tory said to me recently: “Given a choice of two leadership candidates, our local constituency members will never vote for a person of colour.” This is shameful, but his judgment may be correct.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ternatives

Just based on having talked to elderly Tories but beliefs that some races are more intelligent or hardworking than others isn’t always the same as white supremacism.

Both of my grandfathers believed in racial hierarchies but one believed that East Asians were at the top and destined to take over Europeans, whereas the other believed in a sort of Eurasianism in which Europeans and Indians were fundamentally similar (he’d served in India during the war and had really got on with people there).

Other peoples elderly relatives may differ.

Well the Mail is starting to call the Labour leader Sir Beer Korma apparently, so the less observant racists might think both parties have Asian leaders.

I recently read Eric Williams classic of economic history, Capitalism and Slavery. He points out that, initially, people attempting to employ slave labour on plantations in the Caribbean and other places would take people from anywhere, even Europeans. The local native population were obviously a convenient grab. (And huge number of them perished in the mines of the Andes.) Eventually it was discovered that slaves from certain sources were more productive than others, notably West Africans. So West Africa became the go-to source for slaves. Williams suggested it was a matter of upbringing, and getting them at the right age to be responsive to the techniques of slavery, rather than any specific racial characteristics.

So it is easy to draw a false conclusion from that about the propensity to work of different peoples.

In Britain, Poles have a reputation as hard workers. In Chile, Peruvians and Bolivians have a reputation as hard workers. But not many people are going to Poland, Peru and Bolivia to set up factories taking advantage of those hard workers in their native habitat. I think it is more to do with the fact that people who travel for work of their own accord are predisposed to hard work. It's what they are there for, and they are motivated to do their best to earn as much as they can.

IvanV wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:18 pm

In Britain, Poles have a reputation as hard workers. In Chile, Peruvians and Bolivians have a reputation as hard workers. But not many people are going to Poland, Peru and Bolivia to set up factories taking advantage of those hard workers in their native habitat. I think it is more to do with the fact that people who travel for work of their own accord are predisposed to hard work. It's what they are there for, and they are motivated to do their best to earn as much as they can.

I thought Poland has received quite a lot of investment in expanding its manufacturing/industrial sectors - it just needed EU development funds to sort out stuff like infrastructure. Challenges which are even greater in Peru and Bolivia of course.

At least in Portugal I'd say that while plenty of people are capable of working hard, the institutions surrounding those workers are so monumentally inefficient/obstructive that it would be easier to build your factory across the border in Spain (though you'd have to pay a few hundred euros a month more).

Though I agree with the general point that folks' perception of immigrants depends to a large degree on the sort of person from country X who emigrates.

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 09, 2022 8:57 am

To their credit Conservative MPs are a diverse lot. Labour just gives us white men as leaders,

Labour are great at talking and useless at implementation. Labour is the only party with MPs in Parliament to have never elected a woman as its leader (it has had women as acting leader, but not chosen via election).

Conservatives have given us the first two women PMs and will now quite possibly produce the first non-white PM. Or indeed non-human if it's Gove.

There's Sunak, Javid, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel, Badenoch, Kwarteng and Chishti.

But is it going to cost them? If it's a tight contest between the final two, will racists among the elderly Tory membership swing it towards a white candidate?

Quite possibly not. Racism, like any group-based prejudice, is at its strongest when the racist is considering an unknown person. This might be when considering them as a tenant or employee where there is limited informaton. It tends to weaken in the face of more knowledge, so someone could be considerably racist against Asians, yet think their Asian next door neighbours are perfectly fine and not representative of their group. For famous politicians, I expect the effect to be quite small. And how could any self-respecting racist vote against Priti Patel?

This research
https://natcen.ac.uk/news-media/press-r ... n-britain/
says 26% of Brits admit to being at least a bit racist

That sort of survey is useless. Ask people how good they are at driving and you'll find that a majority (often quite large) say they are above average. We rightly regard their answers as useless in assessing actual ability, and there is no reason why self-assessment in other areas should be accurate. I would not be at all surprised to find that the 26% are actually not significantly racist, but have heard a lot about unconscious bias. Similarly, the most racist people might well claim to be unbiased and unprejudiiced.

or perhaps they're just being honest.

If someone asked me (white, male, boomer) in a serious discussion if I was racist, being honest, I'd have to say "probably" or, at least, that sometimes something I said or, worse, did, could be viewed as racist. After all, it's the person/people on the receiving end to decide not me.

I try very hard not to be any of the -ists. And would hope anyone who knew me would point out if I slip. But with the best will, a dodgy word can be used.

https://twitter.com/TrueBlueTories/stat ... 1241992192

A lot of posts comparing Sunak to Roland Rat, or giving him the head of a snake. Not sure Heseltine got that treatment when he challenged Thatcher

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:12 am

If someone asked me (white, male, boomer) in a serious discussion if I was racist, being honest, I'd have to say "probably" or, at least, that sometimes something I said or, worse, did, could be viewed as racist. After all, it's the person/people on the receiving end to decide not me.

I try very hard not to be any of the -ists. And would hope anyone who knew me would point out if I slip. But with the best will, a dodgy word can be used.

And that is a brilliant example of just how useless self-reporting is. To go with it, all we now need is a post from someone else saying they're not racist for refusing to hire a black person because black people have an average IQ of 80.

Trinucleus wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 2:19 pm

https://twitter.com/TrueBlueTories/stat ... 1241992192

A lot of posts comparing Sunak to Roland Rat, or giving him the head of a snake. Not sure Heseltine got that treatment when he challenged Thatcher

Well, Sunak does look quite a bit like Roland Rat (nose, teeth, smile). If he was White British his opponents might well caricature him that way. And Roland Rat is a figure of fun (I haven't seen the snake thing, admittedly). I think Sunak's biggest problem if he gets to be PM is that if you close your eyes you could be listening to Tony Blair.

Blair?!!

Sunak combines the nervous energy of Ed Miliband with the charisma of Mark Zuckerberg. He has identical "billionaire alien robot" vibes, like you can't imagine him doing anything normal or understanding how to interact with a normal person. If you close your eyes you could be listening to a f.cking replicant.

Starmer sounds like Blair if you close your eyes, at least until you nod off.

Trinucleus wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 2:19 pm

https://twitter.com/TrueBlueTories/stat ... 1241992192

A lot of posts comparing Sunak to Roland Rat, or giving him the head of a snake. Not sure Heseltine got that treatment when he challenged Thatcher

Yeah twitter was a lot kinder in 1990

I think the vast majority of tory racists dont think they are racist and are quite capable of voting for “one of the good ones”

noggins wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:17 am

I think the vast majority of tory racists dont think they are racist and are quite capable of voting for “one of the good ones”

But a party with a vast majority of one persuasion can contain a significant minority of another persuasion, which is kinda LPM's original point

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 09, 2022 8:57 am

We all want the Tories booted out of government. But it would be grim if what pushes Starmer & Co over the line is a bunch of votes from right wing Leave voting racists.

I think it would only be grim if Labour started pandering to them (or pandered to them in the first place to get their votes).
If it was just coincidental that enough nasty racist scumbags couldn't face having a brown-skinned PM & so stayed at home or voted labour, and then ended up with a government that would do something* to tackle racial inequality, then I think that would be deliciously ironic.

*probably not enough, given the pathetic timidity of Starmer

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:39 am

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 09, 2022 8:57 am

To their credit Conservative MPs are a diverse lot. Labour just gives us white men as leaders,

Labour are great at talking and useless at implementation. Labour is the only party with MPs in Parliament to have never elected a woman as its leader (it has had women as acting leader, but not chosen via election).

Actually doing something about sexism in the workplace & society is better than having a figurehead.
You're prioritising gesture politics over actual implementation of useful policies.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:39 am

Quite possibly not. Racism, like any group-based prejudice, is at its strongest when the racist is considering an unknown person. This might be when considering them as a tenant or employee where there is limited informaton. It tends to weaken in the face of more knowledge, so someone could be considerably racist against Asians, yet think their Asian next door neighbours are perfectly fine and not representative of their group. For famous politicians, I expect the effect to be quite small. And how could any self-respecting racist vote against Priti Patel?

This is a fair point, for Tory Party members at least.

But won't apply so much at a general election. I think I was quite generous in splitting passionate racists from vague racists, only assuming 1% of voters being racist enough to change their vote. We all know there's committed and open racists, no matter how much quite a few people on this thread have appeared to minimise the problem. I'm old enough to have some memories of 1979 and there were most definitely people openly saying a woman should not be allowed to become Prime Minister, though the scale of the Tory lead over the dying Labour government meant it didn't matter. 2024 is most likely to be a close election, with no overall control being a reasonably plausible outcome. 10 seats switched by 1% of voters being committed racists could make a huge difference.

But it can't be talked about easily, because most racists simply lie and say "I don't like X because of his tax policy" and there's never any visible evidence.

tom p wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:20 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:39 am

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 09, 2022 8:57 am

To their credit Conservative MPs are a diverse lot. Labour just gives us white men as leaders,

Labour are great at talking and useless at implementation. Labour is the only party with MPs in Parliament to have never elected a woman as its leader (it has had women as acting leader, but not chosen via election).

Actually doing something about sexism in the workplace & society is better than having a figurehead.
You're prioritising gesture politics over actual implementation of useful policies.

What you say is true, but it's also a source of shame for Labour that it's never elected a woman as leader. Gesture politics does still make a difference. It provides confidence in what Labour says it wants to do.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:38 am

tom p wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:20 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:39 am

Labour are great at talking and useless at implementation. Labour is the only party with MPs in Parliament to have never elected a woman as its leader (it has had women as acting leader, but not chosen via election).

Actually doing something about sexism in the workplace & society is better than having a figurehead.
You're prioritising gesture politics over actual implementation of useful policies.

What you say is true, but it's also a source of shame for Labour that it's never elected a woman as leader. Gesture politics does still make a difference. It provides confidence in what Labour says it wants to do.

I think the problem is that labour knows it needs to attract voters not just from labour supporters, but from floating voters. There's a chunk of those who are racist & sexist, and they are naturally predisposed to soft support of the tories, whose policies chime with their racism & sexism (euphemistically described as traditional or culturally conservative or similar). They might hold their nose and vote for a woman if she's a tory and a racist, but the combination of labour + woman would be too much.
At least I reckon that that's what many labour folks are worried about.
Which is, indeed, shameful. We should have the courage of our convictions

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 11, 2022 6:07 am

Blair?!!

I should perhaps have specified that I meant his accent and intonation. They are quite similar. Just waiting for Rishi to say "Look, I'm a pretty straight guy".

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:38 am

tom p wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:20 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:39 am

Labour are great at talking and useless at implementation. Labour is the only party with MPs in Parliament to have never elected a woman as its leader (it has had women as acting leader, but not chosen via election).

Actually doing something about sexism in the workplace & society is better than having a figurehead.
You're prioritising gesture politics over actual implementation of useful policies.

What you say is true, but it's also a source of shame for Labour that it's never elected a woman as leader. Gesture politics does still make a difference. It provides confidence in what Labour says it wants to do.

And also, hello, but who the f.ck says that electing a woman as leader would be gesture politics? It could just be electing the best person for the job*.

[/rant]

*Yeah, I know, like that's likely in British politics

Is the overall premise of the thread not somewhat impacted by the fact that all of these non-white MPs have been approved by their local Conservative Association, albeit presumably in some cases having been leaned on by Tory head office to accept a parachuted-in "rising star"? But perhaps there is something special about their particular constituencies that makes the local Tories less racist?

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:11 am

Is the overall premise of the thread not somewhat impacted by the fact that all of these non-white MPs have been approved by their local Conservative Association, albeit presumably in some cases having been leaned on by Tory head office to accept a parachuted-in "rising star"? But perhaps there is something special about their particular constituencies that makes the local Tories less racist?

Or it's likely that they are more racist against unknown immigrants than Oxbridge educated billionaires who shake their hand and pretend to listen to what they say.