All-BAME shortlists are a terrible idea

They suggest the colour of one’s skin is more important than the content of one’s politics.

Kevin Yuill

Share
Topics Politics UK

In a speech last week, Labour leadership candidate Keir Starmer promised, if elected, to reform party culture, and make it ‘open, respectful, creative and engaging’.

Such vacuous phrases understandably sent many to sleep. But those who stayed awake might have spotted a rather worrying proposal buried amid the vacuity. Starmer wants Labour to be able to select prospective MPs from shortlists made up of only ethnic-minority candidates. This, he said, would make Labour ‘truly representative’. In addition, he suggested new bursaries for candidates from underrepresented backgrounds, and a new ‘Labour Party College’ to equip them with a political education and to develop their campaigning and leadership skills.

In many ways, this was all an empty gesture. Starmer knows that the Equality Act would likely have to be changed in parliament in order to permit ethnic minority-only shortlists (although some argue that there could be a provision in the existing act for ethnic minority-only shortlists). And the Conservative government has already said in response to Starmer that it has no plans to introduce such legislation during this parliament.

But while it may be an empty gesture, it is still a telling gesture. It shows how Starmer conceives of representative democracy: not as a means of representing the needs and values of sections of society, but as a way of representing ethnic diversity. It is yet another example of the eclipse of ideas-led politics by identity politics. It suggests the colour of someone’s skin is more significant than what they think and believe.

It is a remarkable move from Starmer when you think about it. Starmer’s response to Labour’s battering at the last General Election is not to wonder whether it is representing voters’ needs or desires. Rather, it is to wonder if Labour is representing voters’ ethnicities.

Underpinning Starmer’s plan is the widespread belief that the idea of diversity is some sort of moral good, rather than a fact of life in modern society. Diversity, conceived as a moral good, becomes something to be promoted and championed – in this case, through ethnic-minority shortlists.

But it is not clear that the political promotion of diversity even helps those it is meant to help. One of the earliest examples of the political promotion of diversity was President Richard Nixon’s Revised Philadelphia Plan. This was originally a 1967 affirmative-action programme, revised in 1969 under Nixon, designed to force trade unions to hire a set number of non-whites on federal construction contracts. Nixon wasn’t really interested in addressing racial inequality, however. He was trying to provoke and demonise his political opponents in the Democratic Party and trade unions who resisted the Philadelphia Plan, and who called it a quota system. Although Nixon eventually publicly distanced himself from affirmative action, his administration oversaw the extension of the affirmative-action principle to the civil service, education and all companies who do business with the federal government.

Overall, there is little evidence to suggest affirmative-action measures have improved the lot of African-Americans. Take, for example, the black-equality index for economic achievement, which is a way of measuring the income of an average black family as a proportion of that of an average white family. In 1955, an average black family’s income amounted to just 58 per cent of an average white family’s income. One would expect, after several decades of affirmative-action programmes and diversity championing, that the index for economic achievement would have narrowed. But as a National Urban League Report revealed in 2018, the figure remains the same, at 58 per cent.

In the UK context, the promotion of diversity and, in Starmer’s case, party-political affirmative action, makes even less sense. What problem does Starmer think he is addressing? As one commentator points out, 20 per cent of Labour MPs are already from ethnic-minority backgrounds, compared to 12 per cent of the UK electorate. It is hard to see how ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the Labour parliamentary party.

But then, politicians like Starmer are not cleaving to diversity initiatives because they are effective – no study has yet been able to show in empirical terms the benefits of promoting diversity in politics, education or in the workplace. Rather, promoting diversity is all about optics. It is all about looking morally good.

This should not be a surprise. Pledging one’s commitment to promoting diversity has become a badge of honour for corporate managers and technocratic politicians. It is a sign that one is on the side of the angels – an indication that one’s position, as a senior manager, or as a leading political technocrat, is justified.

And make no mistake, Starmer is a technocrat. He represents the technocratic wing of a technocratic party. This flirting with ethnic-minority shortlists is a means to dress up his visionless politics in identitarian virtue. There are no big ideas here, just PR moves. The sooner we end his sort of technocratic approach to politics and kick out politicians like Starmer, the sooner we can actually grapple with the real problems facing Britain today.

Kevin Yuill teaches American studies at the University of Sunderland. His book, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation, is published by Palgrave Macmillan. (Buy this book from Amazon (UK).)

Picture by: Getty.

No paywall. No subscriptions.
spiked is free for all.

Donate today to keep us fighting.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Billy Corr

23rd February 2020 at 3:54 am

All-BAME shortlists are a SUPER idea! What Labour needs is an ex-prisoner shortlist for the 1 or 2 parliamentary seats allocated for the behind-bars voters and an all-tranny shortlist to accommodate the tranny vote (perhaps just one parliamentary seat. The fudge-packers and rug-munchers seem to need no special provision; they are doing just fine as things are.

Paul Carlin

13th February 2020 at 5:15 pm

|I wish I knew what ‘technocrat’ means in this context. Is it ‘blindingly, stupidly anti-democratic’?

Marvin Jones

18th March 2020 at 5:28 pm

In Starmer’s case, it means licking the BAME’s rear for a vote.

David Moore

13th February 2020 at 2:27 pm

Confusing what is the case with what ought to be the case is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Someone as supposedly educated as Starmer should know this – yes?

Christopher Tyson

13th February 2020 at 1:17 pm

There is a cohort of black people (usually from North London) in the Labour Party whose true tribe is not ‘black’, but is ‘The Labour Party’, however they are not able to separate these allegiances. For them if you are black but not from North London and not a supporter of the Labour, you do not exist. BAME is a brand, BAME stands for all the non-white people in the world who have ever lived. These people claim to speak for BAME. BAME is their stage army, BAME as a material reality does not need to be addressed or consulted. When Jeremy Corbyn speaks for ‘black boys’ he does so with the confidence that he will be supported by his black coterie. Corbyn can speak out for black people who he feels are being unfairly treated by the Home Office. But why the need to escalate? Why personalise things to draw attention to the PM’s youthful indiscretions or worse his race and poshness. It is not a sin to be white and posh Corbyn is escalating the racial dimension, that may impress his black North London friends, but there are other black people who do not want to be drawn into a full blown race war or do not fantasize about the young black men of Britain taking to the streets (possibly led by Stormzy) to overthrow the posh white establishment, on the contrary, we will not fight for Corbyn and his black North London friends (Stormzy is a South Londoner, he needs to remember this). In any case Boris isn’t even that posh, the Johnson clan work for a living as far as I can see, they don’t own estates and such. I suspect that Johnson is no posher than Corbyn, but so what,
posh people are a mixed bag.

nick hunt

13th February 2020 at 12:06 pm

[BAME shortlists] “suggest the colour of one’s skin is more important than the content of one’s politics.” That’s another classic formulation from Spiked, almost up there with ‘wokeness is elitism masquerading as compassion’. Thank you

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.