Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility'

petercoe Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:23:59 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Can anyone clarify the rules for me about who can describe themselves as black or from a minority ethnic community in terms of the parliamentary selection process please?




For those that don't know, there is now a requirement on branches and affiliates selecting their parliamentary candidate to nominate a BME candidate (where any are seeking selection) as well as a male and a female.

Presumably the requirement on candidates to disclose their ethnicity has therefore become more than just an optional self-description; there has to be some objective criteria by which candidates who may be trying to get selected by finding this route to easy nomination, but whom no one else would regard as BME can be challenged?

I'm not arguing that it's necessarily wrong for the party to have introduced this extra nominating "section" but it's also open, potentially, to abuse and therefore self-defeating.

I'm aware of one recent example which, without knowing the detailed family tree of the person in question but who looks white yet has identified themselves as BME, surely must be open to some form of query/challenge - if for no other reason than to prevent branches nominating someone ineligible and thereby voiding their nomination?

Presumably anyone asserting that they are a BME candidate should also be required to tell members what minority ethnic group they believe they belong to?

Could someone who regards themselves as belonging to a religious denomination claim to be a BME candidate?  Religion, after all, is not an ethnicity.  

I'd presume not, but that's just an example of the minefield this new rule opens up, so I hope someone somewhere has thought about it?


tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' | 36 comments (36 topical)

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#1)

by alexhilton on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:23:14 PM GMT

nteresting you should raise this. I'm half Punjabi Indian from Uganda and always class myself as mixed race on forms. Notwithstanding this, I look quite white these days (I was darker as a child).

I noticed today that Putney has me on their BAME candidates list, which is correct. However, if I receive BAME reserved nominations, would it be unethical for me to accept them? Would it be acceptable for another minority candidate to contest my receipt of nominations because I'm "too white"? I would be offended by this personally, but I'm well aware that Labour Party rules aren't there to protect our personal sensibilities.

I have been racially abused in the past, but only inaccurately as a "paki" or a jew, due to my ambiguous ethnicity.

Should I be subjected to an ethnicity test? I don't have the answers but am interested in readers thoughts on this.


Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#2)

by Wiseman on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:25:14 PM GMT

Dear Alex

Some good points you raise. Lets see how the establishment political thinkers respond.

John Wiseman


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#3)

by petercoe on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:03:05 PM GMT

It's a good point - I was thinking of another constituency, but your contribution suggests that sooner or later there is going to be an issue around this - and the reason I raised this was precisely because I'll bet all the money in my pocket that no one at Labour HQ has even contemplated the ramifications of this.

No offence to Alex, but there will be some - especially within the lobby that supports black sections becoming formally and fully constituted units of the party - who would create a right furore if someone apparently white like Alex mopped up the BME nominations at the expense of a self-evidently black or Asian candidate.

Incidentally, I too have seen the Putney long-list: it transpires that there are more BME males than "white" males on the list!


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#4)

by petercoe on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:06:23 PM GMT

Just spotted that I'm being told that there are "3 comments, 1 hidden" on this thread.  

How do I reveal all posts, or can I not? How does one make a hidden post, and what's the purpose of the facility?

And surely it would be better not to tell us that there's a hidden post if whoever wants it hidden wants it hidden?!

Paranoid minds want to know!


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#5)

by jkitleft on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:25:06 PM GMT

This is an interesting topic, which I have mixed views on. I'm not sure if i agree with all-woman shortlists or mandatory placement of BME candidates on a selection list. I'll give you an example why. Look at the thread on the Bethnal Green Selection, 5/6 candidates are minorities. I think if there is a possibility, for instance, that the selection commitee in somewhere like Ilford could say 'They CAN try here, but minorities might as well try for the Bethnal Green seat'. I'm not accusing Labour of being racist, far from it, it's just that it seems unfair there can be 5/6 ethnic candidates in some constituencies, but none in others.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#17)

by alexhilton on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:08:14 PM GMT

i mistakenly posted my comment before i had finished writing it so the hidden one is mine (as i removed it and started again)


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#6)

by laurencemarshall on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:51:51 PM GMT

This is a problem of definition. Unless we have something solid and concrete to assess what BAME is, then in selections it is going to be open to abuse.

What is BAME? As a basic definition, I would say that anyone who isn't white anglo-saxon would classify.

However, the parsamonious nature of this definition brings up a number of issues. Firstly, is anybody really totally white anglo saxon. In the history of humanity there has been numerous population movements, it isn't hard to drag up a great great grandmother from an ethnic minority to say that you are BAME. Secondly the technology is now there to prove that a person has a trace of mixed ethnicity within them. In the USA, where affirmative action programmes are a source of resentment amongst some potential white college students, DNA testing is now used to access these programs.  

Then there's the cultural angle, which i'd love to write about, but i'll leave it to others.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#8)

by petercoe on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:17:37 PM GMT

"As a basic definition, I would say that anyone who isn't white anglo-saxon would classify."

But then I'd argue Irish is a legitimate minority ethnic group; one with an incredibly strong cultural heritage, which the census accepts as such.  They're clearly a minority community - the question I guess comes down to what "ethnicity" is.

And what about white Australians or South Africans with British citizenship, for example, again minority communities that are very strongly represented in parts of London (especially, as it's a constituency at hand, Putney).


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#10)

by laurencemarshall on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:32:16 PM GMT

Hence I gave a basic definition! I'd love for someone to come up with a better one, there are so many flaws with the one I gave. Anybody want to try to give a more comprehensive one?


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#11)

by doctordunc on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:41:12 PM GMT


Ordinarily, self-definition/ self-categorisation would be best, but then that becomes problematic if there's some perceived 'reward' for having a certain identity.  I shall come back on this, because it is very interesting.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#16)

by grimupnorth on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:07:44 AM GMT

At  one time, being of Irish  origin classified  as "black." But I am talking about Manchester 20-odd years ago so probably not now.....I'm not sure  what I think  about this. I think my line on it differs from the standard left position because IMHO AWS and all other permutations thereof  have often been used by the bureaucrats to stop socialists standing , male or female. But that's another argument.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#18)

by Simon Morley on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:59:17 PM GMT

It seems to me when there are so many more people wanting to become MPs than there are seats there are always going to be problems. Actually, I suspect a lot of people would be happy, and do a good job, if they could be full time councillors, and we should be moving towards that. I also think that would serve people who do have the ambition to move on to Westminster much better as background than the think-tank/special advisor route which gives people little exposure to the 'real world' and has them thinking effective policymaking is about writing papers, with little conception of how to actually get things done. Conceptual clarity is important, but so is the 'small p'  institutional politics, not just the 'big P' party politics.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#7)

by archbold on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:57:47 PM GMT

Surely, this is one of the many difficulties when the LP decides to have a positive selection procedure.   I have long argued that AWS discriminates against minority groups. Most AWS seats are safe Labour seats and by their very nature are in inner-city areas, which have a high percentage of BME voters. This means that male BME candidate has to leave the city and go to areas where he is more likely to be selected.  Remembering that constituencies who chose a BME candidate will likely lose about 5% of the labour vote (MORI). Therefore, a BME candidate has to both fight against a local constituency that will have concerns because the BME population is very small and that their candidate may actually lose votes by the very fact he is from a BME group.  Therefore, if the Labour Party wants AWS they have to prevent discrimination against BME candidate, and so we have a system of shorlisting that requires a BME candidate to be one of three nominated from each Branch.  It follows that this can lead to the absurd situation where one person may receive all the Branch nominations but there was never an intention to select that candidate at the final hustings. The answer is, to scrap all forms of discrimination and let the best man or woman win. Plus I would prefer (as a BME candidate) to be selected not because of the colour of my skin but because I am the best. I am sure that on this thought I am supported by many women.


Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#9)

by petercoe on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:20:37 PM GMT

Sorry, Archbold, how can one person receive the male, female and BME nominations of a branch?!

And of course, there's no reason why a female BME candidate couldn't win an AWS selection, is there?

I personally agree with you about scrapping quotas and set-asides: the problem of course is that when we had that system women and ethnic minorities weren't selected in consequential numbers.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#12)

by archbold on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:22:36 PM GMT

My point is that you are in a lot worse position as a BME male than a white male!  


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#13)

by petercoe on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:27:09 PM GMT

Well, you could argue it the other way too: a BME male could get the male nomination, and a white female could get the female nomination, but a white male could not get the BME nomination.

Given that the majority of male applicants for Putney are BME, this is a plausibility, if not a likely one given the presence of strong local candidates who are likely to dominate this selection; some might say all-but have it sown up already...


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#14)

by Simon Morley on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:46:46 PM GMT

Maybe it makes sense to have AWBAME shortlists? It is definitely a difficult issue in practical terms, but in terms of parliamentary representation I think the argument wins for some kind of positive discrimination. In practical terms as well, the shortlist approach provides a way of dealing with the self-declaration, in that it is a factor people take into account in choosing from the shortlist, and unexplained ambiguity I think would cause people a problem. Actually I think there is another issue, though probably not so immediately relevant, but in educational background. I am a white middle class male, but I feel very little in common with other people similarly classed who I meet in the Labour party, particularly in London, in terms of my experience of education. In the 40s and 50s university generally meant Oxford or Cambridge, but since then I think there are issues over the motivation of people who chose those universities, and the values of the Labour party. I say this a little tongue in cheek, its not a huge problem (maybe because there are so many Scots!), but there is something there particularly in the 30-40ish generation. Its not a big deal overall I would say, although I suspect it actually puts a lot of people off politics and involvement in the Party in particular. People can't be responsible for the school their parents chose for them, but university is a different thing.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#15)

by petercoe on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:48:59 AM GMT

But the shortlist (by which I presume you mean the shortlist drawn up by the EC after branches nominate - not the branch nomination meetings) doesn't address the self-declaration, because at the branch nomination meetings members are faced with loads of standard CVs and nothing else unless candidates have sent out some extra literature themselves, some of which may have photos, some not - it's not an absolute requirement.

From those, members have to deduce who they regard as "genuinely" BME and who they don't.  It's entirely possible that they could nominate someone who would reasonably be regarded as not, depending on how tight a definition of BME you choose to draw.  If that were challenged, and there must in theory surely be grounds for so doing, then the branch nomination is void - potentially invalidating the EC shortlisting.

At the same time, I'm not at all clear what the rules say about the shortlist having to have one or more BME candidates on it - presumably at least one must make it through or there's no point in making it mandatory for branches to nominate.  

They are, after all clear, that there have to be equal numbers of women and men - but it would be difficult to have a similar rule for BMEs because setting a number of BME candidates may unbalance the shortlist in terms of gender (now we're getting into having, say, a shortlist of eight: four men four women, of which at least one man and one woman must be from a BME background - but usually shortlists are shorter than that and with say six candidates, three men and three women you couldn't balance both gender and ethnicity easily).

Grrr.


[ Parent ]

Peter Coe, I salute you! (#19)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:50:57 PM GMT

You have spotted one fatal weakness in a superficially good idea - the problem of definition - as ably highlighted by the various reasonably held but completely contradictory opinions above.

You would end up with all sorts of bickering about who's blacker than whom, and whether half-Jewish is good enough and so on. Plus, I think any BME person with any self-respect would try and get in on merit anyway.


Re: Peter Coe, I salute you! (#22)

by Warren Morgan on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:10:33 PM GMT

Apologies, I haven't had time to read the whole of the above thread so you may find someone has already made the points below:
  • with regard to the Bethnal Green and Bow selection, it is not suprising that 5 of the 6 shortlisted are of Bangladeshi origin as there is a very large Bangladeshi population there; it would be a shame if BME candidates could only succeed in areas with high BME populations, but you have to start somewhere;
  • with regard to the point in relation to someone who is not apparently BME sweeping up nominations and the Black Socialist Soceity's likely reaction, we are (believe it or not) capable of being measured and not hysterical about these things and taking a sensible approach;
  • if we are able to resolve the issue of deciding who is BME for the purposes of Race Relations Act litigation I am sure it is possible to do the same in this regard too;
  • finally, I edit a site called TMP (www.tmponline.org) and if any of you would be interested in writing a piece for our site on this, it would be most welcome.

Chuka Umunna
Executive Committee Member
Black Socialist Society


[ Parent ]

Re: Peter Coe, I salute you! (#23)

by petercoe on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:19:46 PM GMT

Chuka, thanks for the contribution - though once would have been fine!

In respect of point 2, I'm sure the majority of the BSS is capable of being measured and not hysterical - not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming otherwise (nor where you drew your inference that I was solely referring to the BSS) - but equally I suspect you wouldn't be thrilled about this scenario either.  

And, I have to point out to you that there are indeed elements who do get quite hysterical about matters such as these - one only has to visit the Black Information Link website (which has links with Labour, albeit an entirely separate entity) to see a litany of posts inferring that any constituency that chose not to select a black candidate was de facto racist:

See here about Bristol

or here about Hammersmith & Fulham prior to the last election

or here about Hackney South & Shoreditch prior to the last election

Again, not claiming that blink represents anyone other than its hysterical self - and this is getting off the point anyway - but nonetheless, it was to comments like this I was referring, rather than the BSS.

Finally, in response to bullet point 4, that sounds a very sensible suggestion - BUT until this is spelt out so clearly in Labour Party rules there are going to be problems.  And at the moment, it isn't so spelt out.


[ Parent ]

Re: Peter Coe, I salute you! (#24)

by Warren Morgan on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:03:42 AM GMT

Sorry about the multiple posts - there was a fault with the system which Labour Home support have now sorted.

On the BSS, it evolved out of the Black Sections which had gone before it.

Think you're being a bit unfair to BLINK - I'm not sure they directly accuse the CLPs you list of racism, but I understand your point.

BLINK actually performs a really invaluable role in the BME communities in keeping people (who aren't that politial) up to date with whats going on in politics.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#20)

by Warren Morgan on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:05:08 PM GMT

Apologies, I haven't had time to read the whole of the above thread so you may find someone has already made the points below:
  • with regard to the Bethnal Green and Bow selection, it is not suprising that 5 of the 6 shortlisted are of Bangladeshi origin as there is a very large Bangladeshi population there; it would be a shame if BME candidates could only succeed in areas with high BME populations, but you have to start somewhere;
  • with regard to the point in relation to someone who is not apparently BME sweeping up nominations and the Black Socialist Soceity's likely reaction, we are (believe it or not) capable of being measured and not hysterical about these things and taking a sensible approach;
  • if we are able to resolve the issue of deciding who is BME for the purposes of Race Relations Act litigation I am sure it is possible to do the same in this regard too;
  • finally, I edit a site called TMP (www.tmponline.org) and if any of you would be interested in writing a piece for our site on this, it would be most welcome.

Chuka Umunna
Executive Committee Member
Black Socialist Society


Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#21)

by Warren Morgan on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:08:33 PM GMT

Apologies, I haven't had time to read the whole of the above thread so you may find someone has already made the points below:
  • with regard to the Bethnal Green and Bow selection, it is not suprising that 5 of the 6 shortlisted are of Bangladeshi origin as there is a very large Bangladeshi population there; it would be a shame if BME candidates could only succeed in areas with high BME populations, but you have to start somewhere;
  • with regard to the point in relation to someone who is not apparently BME sweeping up nominations and the Black Socialist Soceity's likely reaction, we are (believe it or not) capable of being measured and not hysterical about these things and taking a sensible approach;
  • if we are able to resolve the issue of deciding who is BME for the purposes of Race Relations Act litigation I am sure it is possible to do the same in this regard too;
  • finally, I edit a site called TMP (www.tmponline.org) and if any of you would be interested in writing a piece for our site on this, it would be most welcome.

Chuka Umunna
Executive Committee Member
Black Socialist Society


Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#25)

by sianlloydwebber on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:23:26 AM GMT

I heard that for the Wimbledon constituency, a guy whose father is Greek and mother British had  ticked the BAME box in his official candidature CV, probably genuinely believing that even part non-UK blood should qualify for the BAME quota. However, despite the Labour HQ (correctly) saying that no European white can be a BAME candidate, the designated election organiser/supervisor from London Labour Party apparently emphasised on the candidate's ultimate right to self-certify as a  BAME (i.e. on a subjective, and not objective/DNA basis) and over-ruled objections from Party members. Watch this space: a failed candidate in Wimbledon may soon appeal to make their PPC selection process null and void.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#26)

by sianlloydwebber on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:27:18 AM GMT

And oh, I hear that Wimbledon GC is sitting today to shortlist, and that doubtful BAME guy has already been automatically shortlisted. Fireworks?


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#29)

by alexhilton on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:42:00 AM GMT

Sian, there isn't a BAME tick box. There is a question that asks what is your ethnic background. Mark has responded to it truthfully.

You might think Mark's BAME status is doubtful but I'm half Indian and Mark's a hell of a lot darker skinned than I am - and he has been the butt of more racial prejudice than I have.

And furthermore, he didn't get automatically shortlisted, he received six nominations for the shortlist in Wimbledon.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#27)

by petercoe on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:02:34 PM GMT

Sian, While I have no particular qualm over your statement that "no European white can be a BAME candidate" I have to say that it's self evidently true that any cluster of European whites would by definition be a minority community - in Kilburn and Shepherds Bush huge numbers of Irish; in Fulham and Hammersmith a large (historic) Polish population etc.

And if they were black Europeans - say French Algerians - would it be alright for them to describe themselves as BME (presumably the answer would be yes) - that being so, it would be insidious if a white French candidate could not do likewise; unless we're saying skin colour is the sole determinant of ethnicity.  Which is actually what apartheid regimes insisted...

Could you post the Wimbledon shortlist if and when you know it, please?


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#30)

by sianlloydwebber on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:14:20 AM GMT

Now I've a feeling that both Alex and Peter are essentially right: but our Party's rules seem to be rather inconsistent, if not confusing. As the essence of creating the BAME quota is to ensure that people of colour are not unfairly left out, Mark was being both genuine and right in saying "Yes" to the "Do you feel you're a BAME" type question in the official CV form if, despite his UK/European white DNA, he experienced taunting (of which we all should feel ashamed no doubt) because of being somehow dark-skinned. But then the Party rules (not my rules, Peter) precluding all white Europeans from being BAME is wrong/misleading. By the same token, even dark-skinned Anglo-Saxons (or some British Jews, for example) should be allowed in too if, for example, they've felt being discriminated against because of their complexion. And as a corollary, should we exclude European-looking Asians, e.g. some Lebanese people, who may not probably run the risk of being so discriminated against? Mind boggles!

By the way, Alex, you seem to be very close to Mark McDonald because not only did you identify him but you also knew he got six nominations: a fact the CLP secretary only communicated with the candidate and not even the EC. However, the fact remained that Mark got those nominations under the most-preferential BAME category, whereas Dan Lodge apparently got most nominations in the general/open (non-BAME, non-women) category. There you are!

Peter, as far as I know, here's the final shortlist for Wimbledon:
Eleanor Tunnicliffe - automatically shortlisted
Mee-kuen Chong - automatically shortlisted
Dan Lodge - automatically shortlisted
Mark McDonald - automatically shortlisted
Abdal Ullah - ELECTED by GC.

Hustings scheduled for 2nd June.

       


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#31)

by petercoe on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 12:36:24 PM GMT

Sian, thanks for the update on Wimbledon - I'll start another thread on that.

On the issue at hand, you're right - but my answer to this mess is simply to scrap the BME section.  

If the party is concerned that BME candidates can't make it through then it has to consider ABMES - All Black and Minority Ethnic Shortlists; but I have to say that I don't think the failure of minority ethnic candidates to get selected is any failure of process - it's failure of calibre (and I appreciate that this same argument was made against AWS and some may have a knee-jerk reaction to that sentiment).

High quality BME candidates do get selected, and not just in seats that have majority, or significantly high minority communities.  But just look at the longlist for Putney: 14 or so BME self-describing candidates applied of which only two or three have bothered to turn up to either of the meet the members meetings, and of these only one or two who could string a coherent sentence together on their values, their interest in that seat and how they think they'd be the best candidate for the constituency.

Now of course there are plenty of white candidates who are similarly inarticulate, but they're not going to get selected either - and there'd obviously be no hint of "institutional racism" as and when they fail to win.  


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#28)

by jkitleft on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:19:13 PM GMT

If in the U.S.A. they did something similar (BAME not classifying white Europeans), would Hispanics be left of BAME lists?


Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#35)

by AK on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:57:52 PM GMT

Presumably no, as the Hispanic population of Mexico contains considerable admisture with native Amerindian populations.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#36)

by petercoe on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 02:40:02 AM GMT

The US example is interesting, because of course districts there are drawn specifically to include majorities (or clear minorities) of BME constituents: it's a legal requirement of the Voting Rights Act (something that actually hurts the Democrats, because by concentrating the black vote into one or two districts which the Dems usually win with 80%+ of the vote, the Republicans are able to win the surrounding districts comfortably, but far less spectacularly).

So it's actually the case that there are, in effect, BME districts where a white candidate would be unlikely to win (an exception being the Harold Ford district in Tennessee which he vacated to run unsuccessfully for the Senate last year - here because the black field was split a white candidate was elected in the primary, in a district so overwhelmingly Democrat that the general election was a formality).

Fortunately (at least I think it's fortunate), we don't yet have seats in this country where it is unthinkable for a candidate of any ethnicity to be able to seek election , even though there is likely to be substantial pressure in seats like Ealing Southall and Tottenham for there always to be BME candidates from now on.


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#32)

by ChrisPaul on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:33:06 AM GMT

How many examples are there of a BME woman winning selection in a winnable seat with AWS? In BG&B one of the women tried to get all the BME candidates (the deshi ones anyway) to withdraw as they believed the one non BME candidate in the last 6 would be walked through. On the Irish question the census has not been very useful. Irish Citizens are enumerated in most of the population data one can get but not other Irish people. So in Manchester the census could show 1% Irish when the figure ought to be 15-35% (differing by constituency). I am 3/4 Irish (approx) but would count as White British, though I don't know if that would change if I took up my Irish Passport. Man Wit people got themselves very confused about this at the final hustings (and in some cases all their lives).


Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#33)

by petercoe on Mon May 28, 2007 at 05:12:31 PM GMT

Chris, out of interest would you personally choose to describe yourself as BME given your Irishness? And/or would you think it reasonable or unfair if Irish members could not describe themselves as BME?


[ Parent ]

Re: Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' (#34)

by AK on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:56:30 PM GMT

A cynic might say that self-certification was the route to total chaos. I'm White British, I suppose, but I am part Irish, though you'd not know it from talking to me. and I've never been subjected to racial abuse. Am I BAME?


Black and minority ethnic 'eligibility' | 36 comments (36 topical)