Reader TTS

It did not take long for a torrent of racist abuse on social media to be directed towards the three ethnic minority England players who missed penalties in the Euro 2020 final against Italy

at Wembley on Sunday night. This abhorrent behaviour has been condemned by the England captain, the team’s manager and the Prime Minister, among many others. Natalie Elphicke — the

Conservative MP who privately suggested that Marcus Rashford, who has forced successive government U-turns over the provision of free school meals to children, should have spent more time

“perfecting his game” rather than “playing politics” — has rapidly apologised. But does the invective of a minority point to “institutional racism” more broadly within the UK? New research

published last week by the American pollster Frank Luntz found that responses to that specific question were divided broadly along party lines. Nineteen per cent of Conservative voters

agreed with the statement that the UK is an “institutionally racist and discriminatory nation” whereas almost half of Labour voters, 48 per cent, felt that was the case. By contrast, when

asked if they considered that the UK was a nation of “equality and freedom”, 81 per cent of Tory voters agreed; this figure dropped to 52 per cent for Labour voters. However, if Britain

really is institutionally racist, one has to question how two of the four great offices of state, Chancellor and Home Secretary, are occupied by Asians. The Business Secretary is a black

Briton who, in turn, replaced an Asian one, who stood down to lead the UK’s preparations for the COP 26 conference in Glasgow in November. The recently appointed Health Secretary’s parents

hail from Pakistan, and the vaccine rollout is being managed by a minister born in Baghdad with Kurdish roots. I could go on. But according to Luntz, “wokeism” — an affirmative or pejorative

term, depending on your view, for those who prioritise concerns over social injustice, racial discrimination and transgender equality issues — is rapidly emerging as the new fault line in

British politics. Differences of opinion over the playing of anthems such_ Land of Hope and Glory_ and _Rule Britannia_ at the Proms, calls for the removal of statues of historical figures

that cause offence to certain people, and divisions over the taking of the knee by footballers have all become touchstone “woke” issues. There is also much talk of “white privilege” and the

instruction to those who possess it by virtue of their skin colour to be “awake” to it. This is puzzling, as the Commons education select committee produced a report in June which noted that

the proportion of disadvantaged white British pupils starting higher education by the age of 19 in 2018/19 was 16 per cent, the lowest of any ethnic group other than traveller of Irish

heritage and Gypsy/Roma. Those from a Black African and Black Caribbean background had participation rates of 59 per cent and 31.8 per cent respectively. White privilege is an alien concept

if you are a white working-class boy living on a sink estate in Teesside. But even if you are white and privileged, having gone to public school, Oxbridge followed by a career in investment

banking, would being aware of it have stopped you doing any of those things? The concept seems puerile and futile in equal measure. An independent report from the Commission on Race and

Disparities published in March concluded that “historic experience of racism still haunts the present” and that there was a “reluctance to acknowledge that the UK had become more open and

fairer”. The Commission found that family breakdown was one of the principal reasons for poor outcomes for many ethnic minorities and lamented that all disadvantages that minorities

experience are too often seen through the lens of white discrimination. This sense of victimhood perpetuates an arms race of grievance between communities. Instead of emphasising the right

to be treated equally irrespective of difference, the focus increasingly is on conferring advantage because of it. This in turn increases division and resentment, with society apportioned

into groups where protected characteristics such as race, religion and skin colour are seen as the optimal vehicle to achieve desired outcomes. The French President, Emmanuel Macron, has

expressed grave concern that the divisive woke culture of America is being imported into his country. Here, the veteran race campaigner, Trevor Phillips, agrees and has stated that the

cultural borrowings that “inflame our campuses, workplaces, and even sports fields” worry him. As Phillips rightly points out, it is class rather than race which presents the biggest barrier

to ambition and talent. The Commissioners on Race and Disparities concur, arguing that they “no longer see a Britain where the system is deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities”.

Evidence suggests that geography, family, socio-economic background, culture and religion have greater impact on outcomes than “institutional racism”. They regret that the term has become a

“catch-all” phrase for any “micro aggression” and that obstacles are more difficult to overcome if people from ethnic minorities absorb a “fatalistic” narrative. But in a shrill and

discordant age the reductionist tendency towards univariate analysis, with a seductive focus on the sole variable of race as the determinant of the future is much easier to comprehend than

the messy outcomes that multivariate analysis provides. Luntz worries that equality is being prioritised over meritocracy. His polling found that almost three-quarters of Tory supporters

felt that the UK “gives people a fair chance to get ahead if they work hard and take responsibility” and only a quarter believe it is “full of injustice and inequality”. By contrast, Labour

voters are split down the middle. That not surprising. But it does pose a challenge for both political parties. Keir Starmer has been conspicuously absent from the debate as he knows that

many of his erstwhile Labour supporters in Northern seats will not take kindly to it. The Conservatives, by contrast, have taken a strong anti-woke line on such issues, which carries its own

risks. The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has been reprimanded by England defender Tyrone Mings for “gesture politics” and hypocrisy. She had initially condoned supporters booing the taking

of the knee by England players but latterly expressed “disgust” following the racist tweets of certain fans after the Euro final. Luntz points out that the split is based on values. Labour

prioritises identity and Conservatives tradition. On economics Labour pushes equality and the Conservatives hard work. He argues that there is a “chasm within the country” on almost all

salient issues, with racial inequality being the number one concern for core Labour supporters, but not for a single overall voter group. His warning that the trouble with “woke and cancel

culture is that it is never done” may prove prescient. The challenge for the political class and society at large is how to effectively deal with this culture in the febrile times through

which we are living. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more

than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._