Labour advisor : "You're white and your entire existence is drenched in racism.".

You are misquoting me left right and centre Primrose - though what's new about that. I did not say they were "trying to get votes around feelings that are not based on truth^ I said they were trying to understand those feelings.

Yet again not worth carrying on when you show your prejudices to that extreme and distort everything. That is not a discussion.

I don't think it was the point of the thread if by that you mean the point the OP made, Primrose. That was, patently, another attack on a choice the LP had made. That is why I explained why I thought there might be a way of looking at it positively as well as a way of looking at it negatively. There is not much point in setting up a discussion unless you want to look at both sides is there?

I don't think it will be just the LP that find it need to understand how policies make people feel and the repercussions down the years although I will be quite happy if the Tories follow their usual path of not listening to anyone and just telling them. The picture of the nurse in the debate with May springs to mind. A perfect example of telling someone what they should feel because Nanny May knows best. How to loose yet another election I would guess.

We'll leave that up to the Tory party.

I am not sure that what Munroe Bergdorf said is the point

Well, it is the point of the thread. I do agree that some feelings are not based on truth but I don't think it's a widely held belief in any community that the suffragettes were white supremacists.
I can imagine that the LP are trying to hook into peoples feelings - I think most parties have done that for quite some time. But surely trying to get votes around feelings that are not based on truth is getting votes based on feelings that are prejudiced? Or does the LP want to become the party of prejudice, bigots and racists?

Having said that I am not sure that what Munroe Bergdorf said is the point. As I posted previously, it is more about listening to those who feel in some way disenfranchised. That will not mean that the reasons they feel this way will all be based on truth but that is also important to know particularly if it is a community feeling. We can see people appearing to vote against their own best interests in both the Trump win and Brexit. It seems that the LP has realised that voting is not just about statistics and facts but feelings too.

I think 35 years and it being your work must constitute some form of research Iam. I know there was a time when the number of people identifying as Jewish was very low in prisons. I can believe that some cultures have wider circles of care than others.

Iam64
The best 'survey' there is, what you see and hear.

Same observations as I have made Iam64

www.careinternational.org.uk/march4women

This Sunday, for those of you who live in London.

My experience of homelessness over 35 years in work was that white British people dominated those in our homeless families units. My current experience of the increasing number of beggars in Manchester City centre and in the outlying towns is they're predominately white and some distance from being young. Before anyone reminds me, yes I do know that being homeless ages people dramatically.

I live in and visit many areas with large black African /West Indian population, large communities whose origins are in Pakistan and a large Jewish population. We also have many people of Irish heritage and an increasing population of Eastern Europeans. The majority of beggars continue to be from the White British population. I have yet to see anyone whose origins are from the Indian / Pakistani community either homeless or begging.\
I appreciate my 'survey' isn't properly researched, it's simply based on my observations as I go about my life.

I think probably Gracesgran addresses that when she says you need to look at different pieces of research information to get a wider view of the subject.

And if all statistical information is "cherry-picked", what evidence do you use to form an opinion? That's a genuine question.

It's up to you to decide and justify what statistics you used. Choosing a small subset of the data I used, which is the only one that makes the point you want to make is not going to convince me. But my comment was not aimed at you.
Your statistics did not show that a white person would be housed before a black person because the white person had white privilege. I'm still waiting to see some evidence of that. I'm not hopeful that you'll find it.

I've already contributed to the Grenfell thread when it was active, but you should probably post your questions there.

It's about race, and therefore the IRR is a reasonable institution to get statistics from.
The question was whether a white person who was homeless would be housed before a black person.
Of course I bloody well know what cherrypicking means.
How bloody patronising and supercilious can you get!

I notice you are still avoiding any answer about Grenfell.

Jen, the chart is using the breakdown used by the census. It does break down the white population into various groups.
It's not misleading at all.

How do you expect the Institute of Race Relations to get their statistics, primrose?

Not my problem at all Jen, you chose to use them!

All statistical information is "cherry-picked"

Except the census. That is not cherry-picked. Or the information for the whole of London. I'm sorry, you don't seem to know what cherry-picking means with respect to statistics.

I asked for the people defending the privilege of white homeless people to provide some evidence. Otherwise, it's not an opinion based on evidence, is it?

But whatever. You might think those white people sleeping rough tonight are in a better position and have more agency than those black people sleeping rough tonight. You can think they have white privilege. I don't. I think they're all in the same, horrible position with the same poor chance of getting out of it.

... that link from the IRR uses information that has been cherry-picked ...

All statistical information is "cherry-picked". It is designed to look at specific things. If you want to look at some other part of the subject you must use different research. Two people doing research in the same area may be looking at different parts of the topic and that will influence their research and the set of statistics that produces. This does not make them wrong - or right. It just means you have to be sure to use the research/statistics that are relevant to what you are choosing to look at.

If you don't want to look at something from the point someone else has selected why not look at research that covers your area of interest Primrose not criticise someone else for not giving you what you want.

The chart that you gave is misleading, too.
It could have broken up the white population into various subgroups, but it didn't.
Or it could have put the BAME group together, but it didn't.

"According to BMENational and the Human City Institute, 28 per cent of statutory homeless households were from a ‘BME background’ in 2001; by 2011 this had increased to 33 per cent and by 2013 this had increased to 37 per cent."

Are you denying this happened?
If they use a certain area, such as Wolverhampton, they say it is an example.

You only have to look at fullfact to see how the government cherrypicks the statiistics they want. May does it all the time in PMQs.

These statistics have been collated from a variety of different sources, which have differing ways of categorising and describing ‘race’ and ethnicity. (For example, some sources differentiate between particular black ‘groups’ whilst others do not. Some sources may just use the term Asian, others may differentiate between different Asian groups or different religious groups.) Where we have used other organisations’ statistics, we have followed the categorisation/names used by them – which means that there may be inconsistencies in terminology within and between pages.

How do you expect the Institute of Race Relations to get their statistics, primrose?

So howe many Grenfell residents are still homeless, primrose?
Is that cherry-picking, too?

Especially when you have areas like Chelsea and Kensington where the homeless will get moved on anyway. Using all areas of London masks the fact that our capital city has areas of terrible deprivation and need, but no-one wants the tourists to see or hear about them.

Sorry Jen, but that link from the IRR uses information that has been cherry-picked and is not a true representation of the issue. For example, they use one London borough where the BAME population is more likely to experience homelessness - however you can see from the chart that this is not representative of London as a whole.

They have found data that fits the answer they want, not analysed the data and come up with an answer. It's pretty easy to prove anything with a subset of London data - you have 8 million people and you can find a subset to 'prove' anything you want. That's why to get a proper picture, you use them all.

Sorry The Then

The that is your problem as you say Primrose. Mine was not a "standard" answer but my answer as I see it. You are perfectly at liberty to disagree as I am to stop being part of this conversation.

The problem for me is the standard 'poor and unheard' response that is given out to victimise the people who have done something offensive just is not appropriate here.
She describes her upbringing as 'solidly middle class' - boys school, uni, job in fashion then media as a paid 'influencer'.
She is not unheard by any stretch of the imagination.
She is not poor.