You’ve badly misread that article - it said most young people did not recognise a politician from the 60s, and included nothing about their views on immigration, simply asked do they know about a speech from 5 decades ago. Unsurprisingly, you had to be there...
-
-
Replying to @tomdupresh
You do not sound like you bothered to click to or read the linked research report "Many Rivers Crossed" which contains qualitative research from the West Midlands & national polling on precisely those points.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sundersays
Sorry if I missed anything will read through later. Two points to be aware of though are that public opinion isn’t a monolith and often changes rapidly, and that if that generational trend does in fact exist here, it’s the exception in the developed world. France, Italy, etc
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomdupresh
I'm struck by how v.little you seem to know about your own country. My tweet said you'd find this distinctly difficult in Britain for 2 reasons: depth of intergenerational shift in attitudes here differs *and* weakness of "European" as identity in UK, a narrow (liberal) segment
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sundersays
I really question the idea of intergenerational shift as being real or relevant here. This is like all those young remain voters who couldn’t be bothered to show up - if you claim a group of people think something, they will often repeat the claim back to you
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomdupresh
This seems to me puzzling: If UK GI claims to "explicitly denounce racism and racist language" (Sunday Times), why is it so important for you to challenge my claim of a "UK intergenerational shift against racism"? The evidence for the claim is strong but why is it a problem?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sundersays
Because racism tends to get worse in increasingly multicultural societies, rather than better. It is one of several negative side effects. I would also argue that while parts of RoB were ill-advised, Enoch Powell was not racist, and neither was the speech
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomdupresh
You can find my view of Powell in 'Many Rivers Crossed' when you get round to it. But I am surprised to hear you find parts of it "ill advised" since your own argument sounds very similar indeed. Where do you think the speech did go too far and why?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sundersays
I think the line about whip hands, even if it was an 'anecdote', was inflammatory, and hasn't played out in reality, though some would say affirmative action style policies are similar. He underestimated the rate of demographic change however. Reading the article now, thanks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomdupresh
Tour criticism of "whip hand" seems primarily that it was a tactical mis-step on tone. But Enoch said it for a substantive reason: the 1968 anti-discrimination bill was the occasion of his speech. Where are you on that? With 50 years hindsight, repeal the act or keep it?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Not a tactical misstep - tone matters with potentially inflammatory topics. I also don’t think the prediction came true, though many of his others were accurate / understatements
-
-
Replying to @tomdupresh
Tone matters. So does substance. You would repeal the race relations act after 50 years? or keep it?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.