Post by Teddy Bear on May 29, 2014 17:08:09 GMT
Let's just look at a recent poll:
Before going into the validity of this poll, it's worth knowing something about who this Penny Young is.
Penny Young is chief executive of NatCen. Before joining NatCen, Penny was head of audiences at the BBC Trust, the body which represents licence fee payers
Now to the poll on which the above is based in which 2149 people were asked - “How would you describe yourself … as very prejudiced against people of other races, a little prejudiced, or not prejudiced at all?”.
In 2013, 3% described themselves as “very prejudiced”, 27% said they were “a little prejudiced”, and 68% said they were “not prejudiced at all” (a further 2% said they did not know).
Now I wonder just how many of these people really understood what prejudice actually means. Did they really know that it is
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Because I doubt that few if any of those who admitted a prejudice did so with the understanding that it implies that they have no reason for this opinion. So in a way it's a ridiculous question. Better would be to have narrowed down various types of foreigners and races, those with a reputation for good integration, and those who have not, and then asked related to how well they thought they integrated and if they disliked them for that reason. Then we might see that it is not PREJUDICE, but people having good reason to feel the way they do. Perhaps it might have shown a far higher figure than indicated, but nothing to do with racism.
Steven Glover shares his view.
Racial prejudice 'on the rise' in the UK
Almost a third of British people describe themselves as either "very" or "a little" prejudiced against people of other races, a survey of social attitudes finds.
The British Social Attitudes Survey, published annually by the National Centre of Social Research (NatCen), revealed "troubling" findings that levels of racial prejudice are "on the rise".
NatCen said 30 per cent of more than 2,000 people surveyed said they were "very" or "a little" prejudiced against people of different races. The figures show 3 per cent said they were "very" prejudiced against people of other races and 27 per cent said they were "a little" prejudiced.
The figures herald a return to previous levels of racial intolerance before an all-time low in 2001 (25 per cent), NatCen said.
"The findings are troubling," said Penny Young, chief executive of NatCen Social Research.
"Levels of racial prejudice declined steadily throughout the nineties, but have been on the rise again during the first decade of this century. This bucks the trend of a more socially liberal and tolerant Britain.
"Our local and national leaders need to understand and respond to increased levels of racial prejudice if we are to build strong local communities!
Almost a third of British people describe themselves as either "very" or "a little" prejudiced against people of other races, a survey of social attitudes finds.
The British Social Attitudes Survey, published annually by the National Centre of Social Research (NatCen), revealed "troubling" findings that levels of racial prejudice are "on the rise".
NatCen said 30 per cent of more than 2,000 people surveyed said they were "very" or "a little" prejudiced against people of different races. The figures show 3 per cent said they were "very" prejudiced against people of other races and 27 per cent said they were "a little" prejudiced.
The figures herald a return to previous levels of racial intolerance before an all-time low in 2001 (25 per cent), NatCen said.
"The findings are troubling," said Penny Young, chief executive of NatCen Social Research.
"Levels of racial prejudice declined steadily throughout the nineties, but have been on the rise again during the first decade of this century. This bucks the trend of a more socially liberal and tolerant Britain.
"Our local and national leaders need to understand and respond to increased levels of racial prejudice if we are to build strong local communities!
Before going into the validity of this poll, it's worth knowing something about who this Penny Young is.
Penny Young is chief executive of NatCen. Before joining NatCen, Penny was head of audiences at the BBC Trust, the body which represents licence fee payers
Now to the poll on which the above is based in which 2149 people were asked - “How would you describe yourself … as very prejudiced against people of other races, a little prejudiced, or not prejudiced at all?”.
In 2013, 3% described themselves as “very prejudiced”, 27% said they were “a little prejudiced”, and 68% said they were “not prejudiced at all” (a further 2% said they did not know).
Now I wonder just how many of these people really understood what prejudice actually means. Did they really know that it is
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Because I doubt that few if any of those who admitted a prejudice did so with the understanding that it implies that they have no reason for this opinion. So in a way it's a ridiculous question. Better would be to have narrowed down various types of foreigners and races, those with a reputation for good integration, and those who have not, and then asked related to how well they thought they integrated and if they disliked them for that reason. Then we might see that it is not PREJUDICE, but people having good reason to feel the way they do. Perhaps it might have shown a far higher figure than indicated, but nothing to do with racism.
Steven Glover shares his view.
Despite ceaseless immigration, the British are NOT more racist - whatever the blathering Left and BBC might say
By Stephen Glover
The Guardian and the BBC - how often those two fine institutions are mentioned in the same breath! - have worked themselves up into a great lather over a report that suggests the British are becoming more racially prejudiced.
This startling conclusion was reached by a research organisation called NatCen, which receives at least three quarters of its annual budget from HM Government - that's you and me.
Rather than wait for the publication of its mostly publicly-funded report in a few months' time, NatCen has obligingly dropped it into the Guardian's lap, sending the newspaper and the BBC haywire - which is presumably what it had intended.
We are told by the Guardian of 'concerns that growing hostility to immigrants and widespread Islamophobia are setting back race relations 20 years'. But, in fact, there is very little evidence to support this alarming contention.
According to the newspaper, Britons who said they were 'either very or a little prejudiced against people of other races' fell from a high of 38 per cent in 1987 to an all-time low of 25 per cent in 2001. The figure subsequently soared back to its previous high of 38 per cent in 2011.
Yet a more careful analysis shows that it then fell back to 26 per cent in 2012 before rising a little to 30 per cent last year. But that figure was exceeded in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, as well as in 2011.
In other words, there is no indication of a 'rising tide of prejudice' in Britain. In the past decade, the proportion of people expressing so-called prejudice has been higher, and it has been lower. With relatively slight samples - only 2,149 in 2013 - such quite small variations should anyway be treated cautiously.
Far be it from me to suggest that the Guardian and the BBC are grossly exaggerating - less charitable souls might say 'inventing' - an increase in racial prejudice in the wake of Ukip's stunning victory in the Euro elections!
My take is almost the exact opposite. If the number of Britons describing themselves as being 'either very or a little prejudiced against people of other races' has risen by a mere five points from 25 per cent in 2001 to 30 per cent last year, the wonder is that the increase has not been greater. Since 2001, net migration has been 3.2 million.
And that's just the official figure. No one knows how many illegal immigrants have slipped into Britain over the period. Almost everyone accepts that we have seen an unprecedented rapid social transformation. Many Britons have experienced extra pressure on schools, hospitals and other public services and, in some cases, on the jobs market.
These rapid changes largely explain the recent electoral success of Ukip. Most people - and I unashamedly number myself among them - believe that there has been too much immigration in too short a time. Of course, I don't doubt that immigrants have in many ways enriched this country and helped to boost the economy, and that they will continue to do so.
For most people this is not in dispute. The argument is about numbers, and the pace of change. That is why David Cameron was right in 2010 to say he wanted net annual immigration to come down to below 100,000.
Unfortunately, although the Government has made some progress in reducing numbers from outside the EU, the figure remains stubbornly high at 212,000 last year.
Ukip's assertion that we will never be able to bring immigration under control until or unless we are permitted to cut immigration from the EU, for which the 'free movement of people' is an article of faith, is probably correct.
It is certainly true that a growing number of migrants from recession-hit EU countries, attracted to our comparatively buoyant economy and our welfare state, is making it harder for the Government to bring down overall numbers.
Given all this, it is a testimony to the good nature and tolerance of most British people that there have not been more signs of an increase in racial prejudice.
As I've said, it's debatable whether there are any signs at all. Compare what has happened here with other European countries, especially France.
In Britain we have Ukip, which argues in favour of 'controlled immigration' and condemns racism, though it undoubtedly harbours some racists among its membership.
In France, by contrast, the Front National has achieved a similar share of the vote. I don't know whether it deserves the epithet 'fascist' just bestowed on it by the German finance minister, but it certainly has a racist and extremist recent past, which its leader, Marine Le Pen, unconvincingly seeks to disavow.
The British equivalent of the Front National is not Ukip, but the British National Party. The most cheering aspect of the Euro elections was the sharp decline of the BNP's vote and the loss of its two seats in the European Parliament, one of which had been held by its leader, Nick Griffin.
Some former BNP supporters were seemingly drawn to Ukip. But isn't it better that they should vote for a party which generally avoids extremist language, and refuses to have anything to do with Marine Le Pen, rather than for Mr Griffin's BNP?
The far-Right was not only triumphant in France. The ultra-Right Danish People's Party won the largest share of the vote in Denmark, a country most of us would normally associate with moderation and good sense.
The success of far-Right (and a few far-Left) parties in European countries can reasonably be attributed to a widespread reaction against uncontrolled immigration, as well as to high unemployment and sclerotic economies.
Knowing France pretty well, I don't think I am sticking my neck out by saying that it is a much more racist country than Britain. It's no surprise to me that the French should give birth to the Front National while we produce Nigel Farage.
Of course, we shouldn't be complacent. Last year, the former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett warned that tensions between local people and Roma migrants in Sheffield (where his constituency is) could escalate into rioting unless action is taken to improve integration.
There are potential 'flashpoints' and I fear that if mass immigration does not abate - and the Left's obsession with multi-culturalism, which discourages integration, prevails - there could still be trouble ahead.
Moreover, I hardly think it surprising that people who live in settled communities should regard the influx of large numbers of immigrants with some misgivings.
That does not make them prejudiced, or bigoted. The fact remains that, despite mass immigration, the British have not become more racist.
This is no thanks to the Labour government, which between 2001 and 2010 threw open the door, partly out of the cynical calculation that more migrants would bolster their electoral prospects.
Now, by a misreading of the figures, the Guardian and the BBC seek to foster the myth that there is a rising tide of prejudice. It's not true, and the figures don't bear it out. All things considered, the relative absence of racism is a tribute to the British people.
By Stephen Glover
The Guardian and the BBC - how often those two fine institutions are mentioned in the same breath! - have worked themselves up into a great lather over a report that suggests the British are becoming more racially prejudiced.
This startling conclusion was reached by a research organisation called NatCen, which receives at least three quarters of its annual budget from HM Government - that's you and me.
Rather than wait for the publication of its mostly publicly-funded report in a few months' time, NatCen has obligingly dropped it into the Guardian's lap, sending the newspaper and the BBC haywire - which is presumably what it had intended.
We are told by the Guardian of 'concerns that growing hostility to immigrants and widespread Islamophobia are setting back race relations 20 years'. But, in fact, there is very little evidence to support this alarming contention.
According to the newspaper, Britons who said they were 'either very or a little prejudiced against people of other races' fell from a high of 38 per cent in 1987 to an all-time low of 25 per cent in 2001. The figure subsequently soared back to its previous high of 38 per cent in 2011.
Yet a more careful analysis shows that it then fell back to 26 per cent in 2012 before rising a little to 30 per cent last year. But that figure was exceeded in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, as well as in 2011.
In other words, there is no indication of a 'rising tide of prejudice' in Britain. In the past decade, the proportion of people expressing so-called prejudice has been higher, and it has been lower. With relatively slight samples - only 2,149 in 2013 - such quite small variations should anyway be treated cautiously.
Far be it from me to suggest that the Guardian and the BBC are grossly exaggerating - less charitable souls might say 'inventing' - an increase in racial prejudice in the wake of Ukip's stunning victory in the Euro elections!
My take is almost the exact opposite. If the number of Britons describing themselves as being 'either very or a little prejudiced against people of other races' has risen by a mere five points from 25 per cent in 2001 to 30 per cent last year, the wonder is that the increase has not been greater. Since 2001, net migration has been 3.2 million.
And that's just the official figure. No one knows how many illegal immigrants have slipped into Britain over the period. Almost everyone accepts that we have seen an unprecedented rapid social transformation. Many Britons have experienced extra pressure on schools, hospitals and other public services and, in some cases, on the jobs market.
These rapid changes largely explain the recent electoral success of Ukip. Most people - and I unashamedly number myself among them - believe that there has been too much immigration in too short a time. Of course, I don't doubt that immigrants have in many ways enriched this country and helped to boost the economy, and that they will continue to do so.
For most people this is not in dispute. The argument is about numbers, and the pace of change. That is why David Cameron was right in 2010 to say he wanted net annual immigration to come down to below 100,000.
Unfortunately, although the Government has made some progress in reducing numbers from outside the EU, the figure remains stubbornly high at 212,000 last year.
Ukip's assertion that we will never be able to bring immigration under control until or unless we are permitted to cut immigration from the EU, for which the 'free movement of people' is an article of faith, is probably correct.
It is certainly true that a growing number of migrants from recession-hit EU countries, attracted to our comparatively buoyant economy and our welfare state, is making it harder for the Government to bring down overall numbers.
Given all this, it is a testimony to the good nature and tolerance of most British people that there have not been more signs of an increase in racial prejudice.
As I've said, it's debatable whether there are any signs at all. Compare what has happened here with other European countries, especially France.
In Britain we have Ukip, which argues in favour of 'controlled immigration' and condemns racism, though it undoubtedly harbours some racists among its membership.
In France, by contrast, the Front National has achieved a similar share of the vote. I don't know whether it deserves the epithet 'fascist' just bestowed on it by the German finance minister, but it certainly has a racist and extremist recent past, which its leader, Marine Le Pen, unconvincingly seeks to disavow.
The British equivalent of the Front National is not Ukip, but the British National Party. The most cheering aspect of the Euro elections was the sharp decline of the BNP's vote and the loss of its two seats in the European Parliament, one of which had been held by its leader, Nick Griffin.
Some former BNP supporters were seemingly drawn to Ukip. But isn't it better that they should vote for a party which generally avoids extremist language, and refuses to have anything to do with Marine Le Pen, rather than for Mr Griffin's BNP?
The far-Right was not only triumphant in France. The ultra-Right Danish People's Party won the largest share of the vote in Denmark, a country most of us would normally associate with moderation and good sense.
The success of far-Right (and a few far-Left) parties in European countries can reasonably be attributed to a widespread reaction against uncontrolled immigration, as well as to high unemployment and sclerotic economies.
Knowing France pretty well, I don't think I am sticking my neck out by saying that it is a much more racist country than Britain. It's no surprise to me that the French should give birth to the Front National while we produce Nigel Farage.
Of course, we shouldn't be complacent. Last year, the former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett warned that tensions between local people and Roma migrants in Sheffield (where his constituency is) could escalate into rioting unless action is taken to improve integration.
There are potential 'flashpoints' and I fear that if mass immigration does not abate - and the Left's obsession with multi-culturalism, which discourages integration, prevails - there could still be trouble ahead.
Moreover, I hardly think it surprising that people who live in settled communities should regard the influx of large numbers of immigrants with some misgivings.
That does not make them prejudiced, or bigoted. The fact remains that, despite mass immigration, the British have not become more racist.
This is no thanks to the Labour government, which between 2001 and 2010 threw open the door, partly out of the cynical calculation that more migrants would bolster their electoral prospects.
Now, by a misreading of the figures, the Guardian and the BBC seek to foster the myth that there is a rising tide of prejudice. It's not true, and the figures don't bear it out. All things considered, the relative absence of racism is a tribute to the British people.