Is democracy dying

[Retsdon]

The whole immigration thing was never thought through. Unfortunately it's too late to turn the clock back now so the choice is between conflict or compromise. 

The problem though is that there are those who will never be happy with any concessions, and who use the term 'racist' as a stick to beat others they don't see eye to eye with. 

Ask them to define the term though, and they start to stumble.

[The Heron]

Mob rules OK the government seems terrified to do anything, we can't upset the snow flakes can we 

[Wharf Rat]

What form of democracy are you referring too?   Plato's, Schumpeter's, Rousseau's, Mill's, Marcuse's?   Without a definition, the original statement has no meaning.  

[henry d]

9 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Henry, with your track record I think its probably you that should do that.

True I could do with a brush up but as wharf rat has said there needs to be a definition. Island gun has put forward a basic idea of his idea of it, and others have their version and you added the idea of the opinions of the majority as the basis of democracy. If that is the case we need to change our system government as that is not the case at the moment.

[12gauge82]

8 hours ago, captainhastings said:

The country is going down the pan at an amazing rate. Take me back to the eighties we didn't have all this tech stuff but there were less rules and regs and more freedom and I know which I would rather. Dread to think were we will be in another 10 years 

Spot on. All this nonsense is doing nothing other than causing division and splitting society along racial lines, causing problems that didn't exist.

Absolute madness!

[captainhastings]

9 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Spot on. All this nonsense is doing nothing other than causing division and splitting society along racial lines, causing problems that didn't exist.

Absolute madness!

The media is so much to blame for all of it be it the racism issue or corvid and even our own field sports issues. The 24/7 constantly stirring and exaggerating the news. All we need of the news is factual unbiased news read out and done.  We don't want opinions as we can form our own 

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, captainhastings said:

All we need of the news is factual unbiased news read out and done.

I believe that was what the BBC was supposed to do ............

[captainhastings]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

I believe that was what the BBC was supposed to do ............

Yea they used too but that was a long long time ago

[Robertt]

I'm afraid the Media has turned into a Loose Canon and Frenzy Generator which now creates it's own sensational events, fuels lynch mobs then ' reports' on the situations of their making.

The mayors of Bristol and London have been very predictable in that they had years to act re Statues, Road names etc but now it's No1 on their agenda to promote their P.R profile.

The 'News' infuriates me. About one minute is about as much as I can stand.

Rant over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Robertt

[Blackpowder]

The vocal minority seem to be getting their own way more and more, demanding removal of statues vandalising others.  Where is that going tom lead?

Blackpowder

[Yellow Bear]

1 hour ago, Robertt said:

The 'News' infuriates me. About one minute is about as much as I can stand.

• That long - i'm impressed😂

[islandgun]

7 hours ago, Wharf Rat said:

What form of democracy are you referring too?   Plato's, Schumpeter's, Rousseau's, Mill's, Marcuse's?   Without a definition, the original statement has no meaning.  

Thanks for that , I had a bit of a google and it seems Plato wasnt all that keen on democracy.. however the description for Representative Democracy is probably  nearest to my understanding of the UK democracy  

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Representative_democracy

[grrclark]

It is a really interesting question posed by IG, however we would need to establish what exactly is "democracy"?

Broadly and very simply it is a decision-making process that assumes a level of equality by those in that decision-making process where consensus is achieved and decisions are made in favour of the largest element of consensus.

We of course have a parliamentary democracy in the UK where we elect representatives to participate in a legislature conducting that decision-making process, however suffrage is not given to everyone in the UK so is not fully representative.  Also, the fact that we operate on a first past the post system of electoral seats rather than proportional representation also means that the makeup of our parliamentary representatives may not represent a majority view in the decision-making process.

Further to that, and as evidenced by Brexit votes most notably, our parliamentarians are not bound to vote or act in line with the majority wishes or their ward, once we elect them they can vote in favour of how they choose, whether that be following the party whip or whether they have a free vote.

So, there is a reasonable argument that in the UK our parliamentary democracy is fundamentally flawed and is very much dying in its current form.  Especially in the digital world where the ability to share and consider the wider spread of opinion and thoughts is far greater.

In respect to what may feel like an increasing level of lawlessness and rebellion against current received wisdom, custom and practice, is that killing our democracy?  I don't believe it is, it is a process of evolution through the forever changing social conscience.

I believe there is a very real problem in the UK, and other mature western economies, where a significant proportion of our populace feel disenfranchised and disconnected.  There is significant voter apathy, arguably because people don't think the system works for them; there is a significant loss of trust and faith in our politicians in that they are not acting in our best interest; there is a significant difference in some opportunities open to the youth of today relative to what most of the PW membership had with the largest being the ability to buy and own property and establish a societal root.  Conversely there is far greater educational opportunity afforded to today's youth, but perversely, often with little benefit to show for that extra education.

There is also a significant difference in value between generations, Raja touched on it in page 1 when he highlighted the very typical PW outlook of 'old un's wise and sage, young un's feckless, overly sensitive and entitled' (not his words and I’m generalising hugely).  Values are of course subjective and informed by a multitude of things, typically the values of the old un's are informed by when there was a far greater degree of trust and a feeling of being better engaged with society, whilst the young un's see the world differently because it is very different for them.

Back to answering the question, is democracy dying in the UK?  No, it is living, breathing and evolving.  That evolution is uncomfortable and ugly at times because we have groups of people who are entrenched with very polarised points of view and bridging the gap feels impossible if you share those polarised positions.  As with any polarised point of view there is elements of extremes and those are hugely unwelcome, but they are also inevitable whilst we remain in a state of conflict.

To try and move forward we each seek to tear the other side down because smashing the others argument is far easier than trying to build a bridge to it and to smash the other argument we come up with more and more extremes to try and justify our position.

To move forward we have to accept change is inevitable because we live in a constantly changing world, that is democracy at its philosophical heart, accepting of change and importantly change that we individually may not be comfortable with.  To deny change, especially because we are uncomfortable with it, is fundamentally to ignore democracy.

So, if democracy is dying is it because we are killing it by not being accepting of change just because that change doesn't sit well with us?

 

 

 

[johnphilip]

10 minutes ago, grrclark said:

It is a really interesting question posed by IG, however we would need to establish what exactly is "democracy"?

 

Broadly and very simply it is a decision-making process that assumes a level of equality by those in that decision-making process where consensus is achieved and decisions are made in favour of the largest element of consensus.

 

We of course have a parliamentary democracy in the UK where we elect representatives to participate in a legislature conducting that decision-making process, however suffrage is not given to everyone in the UK so is not fully representative.  Also, the fact that we operate on a first past the post system of electoral seats rather than proportional representation also means that the makeup of our parliamentary representatives may not represent a majority view in the decision-making process.

 

Further to that, and as evidenced by Brexit votes most notably, our parliamentarians are not bound to vote or act in line with the majority wishes or their ward, once we elect them they can vote in favour of how they choose, whether that be following the party whip or whether they have a free vote.

 

So, there is a reasonable argument that in the UK our parliamentary democracy is fundamentally flawed and is very much dying in its current form.  Especially in the digital world where the ability to share and consider the wider spread of opinion and thoughts is far greater.

 

In respect to what may feel like an increasing level of lawlessness and rebellion against current received wisdom, custom and practice, is that killing our democracy?  I don't believe it is, it is a process of evolution through the forever changing social conscience.

 

I believe there is a very real problem in the UK, and other mature western economies, where a significant proportion of our populace feel disenfranchised and disconnected.  There is significant voter apathy, arguably because people don't think the system works for them; there is a significant loss of trust and faith in our politicians in that they are not acting in our best interest; there is a significant difference in some opportunities open to the youth of today relative to what most of the PW membership had with the largest being the ability to buy and own property and establish a societal root.  Conversely there is far greater educational opportunity afforded to today's youth, but perversely, often with little benefit to show for that extra education.

 

There is also a significant difference in value between generations, Raja touched on it in page 1 when he highlighted the very typical PW outlook of 'old un's wise and sage, young un's feckless, overly sensitive and entitled' (not his words and I’m generalising hugely).  Values are of course subjective and informed by a multitude of things, typically the values of the old un's are informed by when there was a far greater degree of trust and a feeling of being better engaged with society, whilst the young un's see the world differently because it is very different for them.

 

Back to answering the question, is democracy dying in the UK?  No, it is living, breathing and evolving.  That evolution is uncomfortable and ugly at times because we have groups of people who are entrenched with very polarised points of view and bridging the gap feels impossible if you share those polarised positions.  As with any polarised point of view there is elements of extremes and those are hugely unwelcome, but they are also inevitable whilst we remain in a state of conflict.

 

To try and move forward we each seek to tear the other side down because smashing the others argument is far easier than trying to build a bridge to it and to smash the other argument we come up with more and more extremes to try and justify our position.

 

To move forward we have to accept change is inevitable because we live in a constantly changing world, that is democracy at its philosophical heart, accepting of change and importantly change that we individually may not be comfortable with.  To deny change, especially because we are uncomfortable with it, is fundamentally to ignore democracy.

 

So, if democracy is dying is it because we are killing it by not being accepting of change just because that change doesn't sit well with us?

 

 

 

Change wont happen while we are seeing things on the streets  that are been witnessed  by all . That is not about change . That is about unrest , no demo solved anything .

It will just cause a bigger devide shouting and screaming , will eventually  fall on deaf ears .change has to happen because  people want it to ..

[JohnfromUK]

16 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Back to answering the question, is democracy dying in the UK?  No, it is living, breathing and evolving. 

The risk is it will 'evolve' into something that might call itself Democracy.   Note that many of the world's nastiest regimes include the word "Democratic" in their name - notably north Korea, East Germany, Congo etc.

[grrclark]

26 minutes ago, johnphilip said:

Change wont happen while we are seeing things on the streets  that are been witnessed  by all . That is not about change . That is about unrest , no demo solved anything .

It will just cause a bigger devide shouting and screaming , will eventually  fall on deaf ears .change has to happen because  people want it to ..

With reference to the bit in bold and other than a small minority of people who are hell bent on violence and creating damage, why do you think there are thousands of people taking to the streets in the UK?  There are a lot of people who want things to change, there are a lot of people who feel as though they are not represented at all by the current system and they are shouting loudly about that.

Does that mean that change should be absolute to yield entirely to their point of view? No it doesn't, but it sure as hell does mean that the rest of us need to listen and try to understand what is being said.  It is all too easy to take false comfort by calling out the extremes of the actions and dismissing the entirety of the message because that suits those of us who don't think anything needs to change at all.

As for "no demo solved anything" you seriously need to reconsider that statement.

25 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The risk is it will 'evolve' into something that might call itself Democracy.   Note that many of the world's nastiest regimes include the word "Democratic" in their name - notably north Korea, East Germany, Congo etc.

John, there is a huge difference between totalitarian regimes that rule using violence calling themselves a democracy than an evolution coming about through change in societal attitudes. 

We don't live in an authoritarian and repressive regime, although some on PW unwittingly advocate that we should without any consideration of what that actually means.

If you, by your measure of judgement and values (as earnestly held and as well meaning and intended as they may be) seek to deny the evolution of what democracy looks like then you are yourself seeking to oppress.  There is an absolute necessity to challenge as a moderating force to ensure that change is considered, balanced and measured, but we cannot simply seek to stop change because we don't like or agree with it, for that is also to deny democracy.

Edit to add for clarity of the message:  I'm not actually accusing you of seeking to oppress through sharing your point of view, it is a generalised statement using "you" as an example.  I hope that makes sense.

Edited June 10, 2020 by grrclark

[JohnfromUK]

13 minutes ago, grrclark said:

John, there is a huge difference between totalitarian regimes that rule using violence calling themselves a democracy than an evolution coming about through change in societal attitudes. 

Agreed.  But I do think that those 'hijacking' the present unrest are looking for revolution - not evolution.  I genuinely believe that the UK (and I am only talking about the UK) is not racist, and is a tolerant and multicultural country.  Just look at the mix of people, cultures etc. in the government and cabinet.

Where there are 'rotten apples' and they do occur in the likes of EDL/Tommy Robinson & Co as well as no doubt some in the various polices forces etc. - they are not representative of the UK's official position.  In fact in some respects - the UK exercises positive discrimination in favour of minorities including in the selection of political candidates.  In that I think we are already to far; it should be 'best person for the role' and nothing else.

My view therefore is that we are currently in about the right place - and so shouldn't seek to change that place.  What we should do is weed out and eliminate the trouble makers (on all sides).

13 minutes ago, grrclark said:

we cannot simply seek to stop change because we don't like or agree with it, for that is also to deny democracy.

I do not believe (and I'm sure you don't) that NOT to change due to threat of violence and rioting is denying democracy.  To give way to thugs is not the way forward.

Edited June 10, 2020 by JohnfromUK

[oowee]

4 hours ago, Robertt said:

I'm afraid the Media has turned into a Loose Canon and Frenzy Generator which now creates it's own sensational events, fuels lynch mobs then ' reports' on the situations of their making.

The mayors of Bristol and London have been very predictable in that they had years to act re Statues, Road names etc but now it's No1 on their agenda to promote their P.R profile.

The 'News' infuriates me. About one minute is about as much as I can stand.

Rant over.

Neither the, Bristol or London Mayor has been in power as long as the Tory government. Indeed some would argue that being from BAME backgrounds such action is far more difficult to take.

28 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Agreed.  But I do think that those 'hijacking' the present unrest are looking for revolution - not evolution.  I genuinely believe that the UK (and I am only talking about the UK) is not racist, and is a tolerant and multicultural country.  Just look at the mix of people, cultures etc. in the government and cabinet.

 

Windrush, Commonwealth Soldiers citizenship, Gurkha rights??? BAME 47 times more likely to be subject to stop and search (Its not the policy but the reasns behind why this happens. Job discrimination based on surnames. Greater chance of death from covid if you are from a BAME grouping. 

It's not so much about overt racism its the undercurrent of discrimination that pervades all aspects of life, starting with education, going through employment to health chances and outcomes. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by oowee

[grrclark]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

Agreed.  But I do think that those 'hijacking' the present unrest are looking for revolution - not evolution.  I genuinely believe that the UK (and I am only talking about the UK) is not racist, and is a tolerant and multicultural country.  Just look at the mix of people, cultures etc. in the government and cabinet.

Where there are 'rotten apples' and they do occur in the likes of EDL/Tommy Robinson & Co as well as no doubt some in the various polices forces etc. - they are not representative of the UK's official position.  In fact in some respects - the UK exercises positive discrimination in favour of minorities including in the selection of political candidates.  In that I think we are already to far; it should be 'best person for the role' and nothing else.

My view therefore is that we are currently in about the right place - and so shouldn't seek to change that place.  What we should do is weed out and eliminate the trouble makers (on all sides).

I do not believe (and I'm sure you don't) that to change under threat of violence and rioting is denying democracy.  To give way to thugs is not the way forward.

Undoubtably there are revolutionary anarchistic elements taking advantage of the situation to operate under the covers, it has always been thus.

On the question of whether the UK is racist or not, i don't think there is a simple or absolute answer.  Undoubtably opportunity exists for people of every race and culture in Britain and there is evidence of that, so in that sense we would appear not to be racist.  However, I also do think there is a huge body of evidence to say that there is a great deal of every day casual racisim in the UK.  I think that many of us are blind to the consequence of that, not through wilful ignorance, but we are simply not appreciative of how people look at the world differently.

"it should be 'best person for the role' and nothing else", I agree, it should be but the truth is that part of our subjective decision making proces might mean we think that a white or black face does make for the best person for a role, or a pretty young woman, or a protestant, or wearing the right school tie.  We all exhibit subconscious, sometimes conscious, bias all the time and for very very many generations in the UK we were conditioned that black people were a lower class citizen, it was a belief endemic to our Great British values.  It is slightly before my time, but many on here will remember the signs in B&B windows, No Irish, No blacks, No Dogs.  GB was systemically racist if we judge by the standards of today and we cannot deny that.

As i've posted on a couple of threads, humans are judgemental and relatively tribal in that we like to align or associate ourselves with things that bring a feeling of security and comfort.  On that basis there undoubtably is racism, but there is everywhere.

I do agree with you that to give in to violence and rioting would be wrong, thuggery cannot and should not ever dictate change.  However, to simply focus on the thuggery element of the demonstrations and use that as justification to ignore all of what is being said in those demonstrations is also wrong.

Likewise trying to dismiss what is happening because George Floyd was a criminal or because it happened in the US and so is not relevant to the UK is also wrong.

These demonstrations have moved beyond the immediate protest at the death of GF or the Black Lives Matter movement, like all bandwagons multiple causes associate themselves, some anarchistic thuggery and some much more nuanced and subtle, but when tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people in the UK and millions globally in equivalent mature democracies like ours are shouting out then we (all of us collectively) need to listen and understand what is being said, even if we don't agree.  If we ignore what is being said it simply promotes even greater extremes in our polarisation.

Finally, in respect to the bit in your statement in bold, who is the "we" and who is the arbiter of deciding what/who crosses the line and should be eliminated?

[clangerman]

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

Undoubtably there are revolutionary anarchistic elements taking advantage of the situation to operate under the covers, it has always been thus.

On the question of whether the UK is racist or not, i don't think there is a simple or absolute answer.  Undoubtably opportunity exists for people of every race and culture in Britain and there is evidence of that, so in that sense we would appear not to be racist.  However, I also do think there is a huge body of evidence to say that there is a great deal of every day casual racisim in the UK.  I think that many of us are blind to the consequence of that, not through wilful ignorance, but we are simply not appreciative of how people look at the world differently.

"it should be 'best person for the role' and nothing else", I agree, it should be but the truth is that part of our subjective decision making proces might mean we think that a white or black face does make for the best person for a role, or a pretty young woman, or a protestant, or wearing the right school tie.  We all exhibit subconscious, sometimes conscious, bias all the time and for very very many generations in the UK we were conditioned that black people were a lower class citizen, it was a belief endemic to our Great British values.  It is slightly before my time, but many on here will remember the signs in B&B windows, No Irish, No blacks, No Dogs.  GB was systemically racist if we judge by the standards of today and we cannot deny that.

As i've posted on a couple of threads, humans are judgemental and relatively tribal in that we like to align or associate ourselves with things that bring a feeling of security and comfort.  On that basis there undoubtably is racism, but there is everywhere.

I do agree with you that to give in to violence and rioting would be wrong, thuggery cannot and should not ever dictate change.  However, to simply focus on the thuggery element of the demonstrations and use that as justification to ignore all of what is being said in those demonstrations is also wrong.

Likewise trying to dismiss what is happening because George Floyd was a criminal or because it happened in the US and so is not relevant to the UK is also wrong.

These demonstrations have moved beyond the immediate protest at the death of GF or the Black Lives Matter movement, like all bandwagons multiple causes associate themselves, some anarchistic thuggery and some much more nuanced and subtle, but when tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people in the UK and millions globally in equivalent mature democracies like ours are shouting out then we (all of us collectively) need to listen and understand what is being said, even if we don't agree.  If we ignore what is being said it simply promotes even greater extremes in our polarisation.

Finally, in respect to the bit in your statement in bold, who is the "we" and who is the arbiter of deciding what/who crosses the line and should be eliminated?

that’s the most honest post i have seen on here so far thank you 

[grrclark]

12 minutes ago, oowee said:

Windrush, Commonwealth Soldiers citizenship, Gurkha rights??? BAME 47 times more likely to be subject to stop and search (Its not the policy but the reasns behind why this happens. Job discrimination based on surnames. Greater chance of death from covid if you are from a BAME grouping. 

It's not so much about overt racism its the undercurrent of discrimination that pervades all aspects of life, starting with education, going through employment to health chances and outcomes. 

Absolutely spot on.  Of course outcomes are determined and influenced by both sides of the argument, there is a very worthwhile discussion to be had on that front too.

Societal perceptions of a group influence the behaviour/outcomes of the group which in turns influences perception and so on... How you see and interpret that depends on where you choose to look from and where you think that cycle starts. (edit to add: see post immediately below for a perfect example)

Edited June 10, 2020 by grrclark
really rubbish typing and some other stuff

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

Windrush, Commonwealth Soldiers citizenship, Gurkha rights??? BAME 47 times more likely to be subject to stop and search (Its not the policy but the reasns behind why this happens. Job discrimination based on surnames. Greater chance of death from covid if you are from a BAME grouping. 

It's not so much about overt racism its the undercurrent of discrimination that pervades all aspects of life, starting with education, going through employment to health chances and outcomes. 

Windrush is a past matter, Commonwealth soldiers are not racial discrimination, and nor are Gurkha rights.

47 times more likely to be stopped?  Well perhaps the people who do the stopping have good reason to believe that it is necessary?  If not - it may be one of the 'rotten apples' I mentioned.  There is no UK policy to stop people based on race/colour/ethnicity.

Job discrimination based on surnames. - Really?  Just look at the current cabinet.

Greater chance of death from covid if you are from a BAME grouping - Hardly a government policy!

its the undercurrent of discrimination that pervades all aspects of life, starting with education, going through employment  That is not government policy.  It won't be changed by changing government policy any more than by pulling down statues

health chances and outcomes.  Again - not government policy.  Perhaps you feel that BAME people should go straight to the top of the NHS waiting list?  I do not believe the NHS/Health services discriminate based on being BAME.

8 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Finally, in respect to the bit in your statement in bold, who is the "we" and who is the arbiter of deciding what/who crosses the line and should be eliminated?

It should be the UK Justice system ......... but I present I don't believe it is 'up to the job'.

[oowee]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Windrush is a past matter, Commonwealth soldiers are not racial discrimination, and nor are Gurkha rights.

47 times more likely to be stopped?  Well perhaps the people who do the stopping have good reason to believe that it is necessary?  If not - it may be one of the 'rotten apples' I mentioned.  There is no UK policy to stop people based on race/colour/ethnicity.

Job discrimination based on surnames. - Really?  Just look at the current cabinet.

Greater chance of death from covid if you are from a BAME grouping - Hardly a government policy!

its the undercurrent of discrimination that pervades all aspects of life, starting with education, going through employment  That is not government policy.  It won't be changed by changing government policy any more than by pulling down statues

health chances and outcomes.  Again - not government policy.  Perhaps you feel that BAME people should go straight to the top of the NHS waiting list?  I do not believe the NHS/Health services discriminate based on being BAME.

I think you just proved the point. We are all a product of our backgrounds and experience and if we have not walked in the footsteps of those suffering discrimination we can be blind to the issues. Its not the fact that more are stopped or more die it's the reasons behind why they are more likely to be stopped or to die of covid. 

It is government policy that sets the education agenda, and importantly the targetting of regeneration funding that can tackle the foundations of discrimination that manifests itself in the behaviour that we wish to see eradicated. 

PS Windrush is in the past. Not if you were a victim. 1200 claims for compo and 60 paid out. 

[JohnfromUK]

31 minutes ago, oowee said:

We are all a product of our backgrounds and experience and if we have not walked in the footsteps of those suffering discrimination we can be blind to the issues.

It is certainly true that I live in the 'deep countryside' where the locals (and hence those I see regularly to speak to) are mainly white British, but we do have a few Asian British who are fully integrated members of the community.  I worked my whole life in industry, but small high tech industry, and ALL of the companies I have worked for have had very strict ethics policies which have been strictly observed.  Again mostly white British, but some other backgrounds, Asian, Indian, middle eastern - who held a variety of positions within the company.  I can genuinely say that in my working life, BAME people have not been discriminated against.

36 minutes ago, oowee said:

Its not the fact that more are stopped or more die it's the reasons behind why they are more likely to be stopped or to die of covid.

Yes - that they have a higher chance of 'being up to no good' possibly?  Or for Covid - that they are medically more susceptible than white?  Remember sadly many BAME people who have died form Covid have been doctors and medical staff - who have the same 'living conditions' as their colleagues.

I know there are problems - and they are not due to official policy - in which I think the UK has been pretty good overall.  How that policy is applied (usually at an individual level) does have its problems - but BOTH ways.  Remember the fuss about child abuse in Rotherham(?) where it is alleged that the police couldn't intervene because of racial/cultural sensitivities.

This is not a simple case of anti black, or BAME discrimination by the government - and as such attacking the 'establishment' will be thoroughly unhelpful to their cause.

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Yes - that they have a higher chance of 'being up to no good' possibly?  Or for Covid - that they are medically more susceptible than white?  Remember sadly many BAME people who have died form Covid have been doctors and medical staff - who have the same 'living conditions' as their colleagues.

I know there are problems - and they are not due to official policy - in which I think the UK has been pretty good overall.  How that policy is applied (usually at an individual level) does have its problems - but BOTH ways.  Remember the fuss about child abuse in Rotherham(?) where it is alleged that the police couldn't intervene because of racial/cultural sensitivities.

This is not a simple case of anti black, or BAME discrimination by the government - and as such attacking the 'establishment' will be thoroughly unhelpful to their cause.

The UK like many developed countries has a framework against discrimination but to my mind it's more about what the UK is not doing rather than what it has done. The UK does not have a policy to tackle regeneration, poverty, employment, industrial strategy or coherent educational plans. In fact I cant think of anything that has a strategy behind it. That lack of long term thinking driven by our 'garbage' first past the post electoral system mitigates against any sustainable forward thinking strategy, of any sort. This derth of leadership results in aimless policy wandering where we lurch from one plan to the next, one crisis to the next and follow them up with short term sticky plaster politics.