Turn on thread page Beta

How bad is racism against British Asians in UK politics? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    After making the thread on racism in the entertainment industry, I thought I'd move on to politics. (I'm not attacking Pakistanis but I question why there are visibly so many Pakistanis in politics.)

    Ratio of MPs in Commons to Population of Ethnic Minority - + Lords
    Key: No. of MPs (Population / Ratio Figure) - + Lords (Combined Houses Ratio)
    Bangladesh: 3 ( 451,529 / 1:150,510) - +2 (1:90306)
    Black: 15 (2,200,000/1:146,666)* - + 20 (1:62857)
    India: 10 (1,451,862 / 1:145,186) - + 12 (1:65994)
    Pakistan: 9 (1,174,983 / 1:130,554) - + 7 (1:73436)
    Total Population: 650 (64,000,000/1:92,000)* - + 775 (1:45000)
    Sri Lanka [Sinhalese]: 1 (?? / likely to be very overrepresented) - +0

    No British Asian ethnic group is as well represented as the total population. Is this a sign of racism in British politics against Indians, or racism among the general population?

    The electoral method used in the United Kingdom makes it harder for ethnic minorities to proportionately elect members. This is most likely why Pakistanis are the best represented ethnic minority in the House of Commons.

    When Lords are included, Blacks become the best represented ethnic minority, while Bangladeshis become the worst represented minority.

    1) Even if the electoral method used in the UK makes it harder for ethnic minorities to elect MPs themselves, why are they not elected by the general public?
    2) Why does the government not elect ethnic minority MPs to the House of Lords to compensate for the lack of ethnic minority MPs.
    3) How prominent are ethnic minority politicians in other areas of Government?



    Common knowledge about education attainment in Britain dictates that there should be more Indian politicians than Pakistani politicians in government. But statistics show that Pakistanis are best represented ethnic minority!
    This one always gets me. Pakistanis are usually one of the worst performing ethnicities in the United Kingdom, and are even going backwards statistically.

    Why are they so prominent in British politics?

    My instinct tells me that there should be more South Indians than Pakistanis. I can understand there being more North Indians in politics, but the way Pakistanis usually develop in the UK makes me wonder why they are the best represented ethnic minority!


    There appear to be very few South Indian politicians in government. Is this a sign of racism in British politics or do other factors play a role?
    Statistics do not exist on the number of South Indians in the United Kingdom, and most organisations frown on the collection of such data.

    But one ethnicity that we do have statistics for is Tamils. There are approximately 200,000 Tamils in the United Kingdom, meaning that government should have at least two Tamil MPs. Many Tamils can be found in government at the local council level but there are zero Tamils in Parliament.

    Various reasons given for the lack of Tamil MPs include:
    - Tamils are far smaller in number in comparison to the other South Asian groups.
    - Most Tamils have immigrated more recently while other ethnic minority groups have had a similar sized presence in the UK for a longer time. Compared to other ethnic minority groups, only a small number of Tamils are third generation.
    - Tamils are more geographically spread out, while other ethnic groups are concentrated in localities (i.e. Pakistanis in East London). This affects the ability of Tamils to elect an MP to Parliament.
    - Politics is viewed as being 'dirty' and 'corrupt' in Tamil culture and is considered undesirable as a job. (I think a similar situation exists throughout South Indian culture)

    Keeping the history of British racism in politics in mind, I think this is something that needs to be looked into. Why are there so few South Indians in politics?

    India is as ethnically diverse as the European Union. Tamil Nadu is as culturally distant from Pakistan, as the France is from Turkey. Tamils are also very introverted, in a similar manner to how France tends to like being independent.



    *I am unsure whether British Asian statistics include House of Lords, and the Black statistic is a very rough estimate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Politicians are elected because of their policies, not because of their skin colour.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Sadiq Khan was just selected (with my vote) to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Look at all yhe white men (jape and DiddyDec and their pathetix and typical answers. Never fails
    To your answer we ate more likely to get an asian pm than a black ine so chill yah. With arse kissing you lot do you will be fine
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Politicians are elected because of their policies, not because of their skin colour.
    Only partially true. Most Pakistani MPs are elected by Pakistanis themselves, since Pakistanis tend to live in dense inner urban communities (such as East London). Ethnic minority groups that are spread out too thinly will not have a similar chance of electing an ethnic minority MP into Parliament.

    I doubt many ethnic minority MPs would be dropped for a White MP, even if said White MP is identical in every single way except for race.


    (Original post by jape)
    Sadiq Khan was just selected (with my vote) to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor.
    Paksitanis, along with Bangladeshis, are the poorest ethnic group in London and so the two go well together. The choice targets the typical Labour voter, and Pakistanis need a party like Labour to help them out.

    I found it intriguing that for a long time the Tories had the most promenent Pakistani MP, despite Pakistanis being no-where near the target market the Tories should be aiming at.

    It's also interesting that Hindus are being overshadowed by Pakistanis/Bangladeshis in poltiics, despite what common sense would say. I think the UK is over-compensating for the anti-Indian-Muslim racism now, and in a way it's too much affirmative action.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishnow2)
    Only partially true. Most Pakistani MPs are elected by Pakistanis themselves, since Pakistanis tend to live in dense inner urban communities (such as East London). Ethnic minority groups that are spread out too thinly will not have a similar chance of electing an ethnic minority MP into Parliament.

    I doubt many ethnic minority MPs would be dropped for a White MP, even if said White MP is identical in every single way except for race.
    So are you suggesting that Pakistanis are racist as they prefer to vote for their own?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    So are you suggesting that Pakistanis are racist as they prefer to vote for their own?
    It's true to an extent, not the racist bit but the preferring to vote for their own. In poorer communities where there tends to be less integration between cultures, the people tend to vote for candidates that resemble themselves the most. I've seen it first hand living in Leicester. It's not just Pakistanis, white people and Indians in that position do the same thing. I'm sure other races would too. The reason Pakistanis are so over represented is because on average they tend to integrate less and tend to be poorer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Great. First the socialists suggest we reserve seats in parliament for women, now we're hearing it about Asians.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We're drowning in them throughout the Westminster village. Theres barely a QT edition without Warsi or Quilliam Nawaz and Keith Vaz/Hindujas pretty much bummed Blair. Far too many of them on the BBC swell.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    The reason Pakistanis are so over represented is because on average they tend to integrate less and tend to be poorer.
    Sajid Javid
    Sadiq Khan
    Rehman Chisti
    Nusrat Ghani
    Yasmin Qureshi
    Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh

    All these British Pakistani MPs are representing heavily non-Pakistani constituencies.

    And wouldn't being heavily overrepresented in poltiics mean you integrate more, not less?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishnow2)
    Pakistan: 9 (1,174,983 / 1:130,554) - + 7 (1:73436)
    Btw there's actually 10
    http://www.geo.tv/article-184106-Hug...use-of-Commons
    (Original post by fishnow2)
    Pakistanis are usually one of the worst performing ethnicities in the United Kingdom, and are even going backwards statistically.
    Proof? That isn't what these links show
    http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibr...n-changing.pdf
    http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibr...2011%20(1).pdf
    http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibr...oods%20(1).pdf


    (Original post by fishnow2)
    Only partially true. Most Pakistani MPs are elected by Pakistanis themselves, since Pakistanis tend to live in dense inner urban communities (such as East London). Ethnic minority groups that are spread out too thinly will not have a similar chance of electing an ethnic minority MP into Parliament.


    Paksitanis, along with Bangladeshis, are the poorest ethnic group in London and so the two go well together. The choice targets the typical Labour voter, and Pakistanis need a party like Labour to help them out.
    The part in bold has been disproven (see above post)
    And Pakistanis in London don't mostly live in 'dense inner urban communities'. Most live in outer London.



    And btw I don't think Pakistanis in London are living in that much poverty, if you look at Figure 2 here http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibr...oods%20(1).pdf


    (Original post by fishnow2)
    The electoral method used in the United Kingdom makes it harder for ethnic minorities to proportionately elect members. This is most likely why Pakistanis are the best represented ethnic minority in the House of Commons.
    I doubt that's why. Only 4/10 British Pakistani MPs are from heavily Pakistani constituencies.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    So are you suggesting that Pakistanis are racist as they prefer to vote for their own?
    I am saying that:
    1) Pakistanis tend to live more densely and in more inner-urban areas. Therefore, Pakistanis have more chance to elect an ethnic minority MP of their own kind.
    2) I agree that Pakistanis are more likely to vote for someone of their own ethnicity than other ethnic groups. Pakistanis are also more likely to live among their own kind.
    3) Pakistani MPs may also benefit from other 'East London Muslims' (i.e. Bangladeshis).

    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    It's true to an extent, not the racist bit but the preferring to vote for their own. In poorer communities where there tends to be less integration between cultures, the people tend to vote for candidates that resemble themselves the most. I've seen it first hand living in Leicester. It's not just Pakistanis, white people and Indians in that position do the same thing. I'm sure other races would too. The reason Pakistanis are so over represented is because on average they tend to integrate less and tend to be poorer.
    I agree with you that Pakistanis tend to live outside British culture, and that they tend to be poorer. Pakistanis also elect MPs of their own ethnicity.

    I also agree with you that lower class communities tend to be more racist.

    (Original post by stonehrd4eva)
    Great. First the socialists suggest we reserve seats in parliament for women, now we're hearing it about Asians.
    I'm not suggesting that we have reservations proportional to ethnic demographics.

    I'm trying to decipher what racism is like in politics. Visually, there do seem to be more Pakistanis, and less South Indians, than what common knowledge says should happen.

    (Original post by GarageHouse92)
    We're drowning in them throughout the Westminster village. Theres barely a QT edition without Warsi or Quilliam Nawaz and Keith Vaz/Hindujas pretty much bummed Blair. Far too many of them on the BBC swell.
    They are all also North Indian or Pakistani. I think by the time we get to Pakistan, it gets too culturally distant from South Indians to culturally be representative, regardless of religion.

    (Original post by Ravenous)
    And wouldn't being heavily over-represented in politics mean you integrate more, not less?
    It depends. A person who is heavily integrated may prefer to elect a white person over a person of their own ethnicity due to policies.

    Pakistanis tend to be more likely to live among their own kind, in comparison to other ethnic groups.

    2% of the UK is Pakistani, which is around 1.17 million Pakistanis. If there are 10 MPs of Pakistani origin, that would give a ratio of 1:117,000, which is still less representative than the general population ratio of 1:95,000.

    (Original post by Ravenous)
    I doubt that's why. Only 4/10 British Pakistani MPs are from heavily Pakistani constituencies.
    I haven't looked into the demographics of those constituencies, but even if half weren't elected, it would give Pakistanis a ratio of 1:234,000.

    The places marked out on the map are still the poorest areas of London, and a usually classed as 'Inner-London'. South London is more likely to be 'Outer-London', while North-East London is more likely to be 'Inner-London'.

    The following map is of Muslim areas in London, and common sense would say that those in East London were either Pakistani or Bangladeshi:

    I think it's well established that Pakistanis are one of the worst performing ethnic groups in the UK:
    http://www.economist.com/news/britai...n-they-arrived

    The Bangladeshi/Pakistani ethnic group also tends to do worse than Hindus overseas too.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishnow2)
    It depends. A person who is heavily integrated may prefer to elect a white person over a person of their own ethnicity due to policies.

    Pakistanis tend to be more likely to live among their own kind, in comparison to other ethnic groups.
    Pakistanis aren't significantly more segregated than other groups i.e. Afro-Caribbeans and Bangladeshis according to this http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibr...ore-mixing.pdf
    Sikhs have exactly the same level as segregation as Pakistanis according to that.

    (Original post by fishnow2)
    2% of the UK is Pakistani, which is around 1.17 million Pakistanis. If there are 10 MPs of Pakistani origin, that would give a ratio of 1:117,000, which is still less representative than the general population ratio of 1:95,000.
    That's true, there'd need to be a few more to be overrepresented in the house of Paliament. They are overrepresented in the European parliament though.

    (Original post by fishnow2)
    The places marked out on the map are still the poorest areas of London, and a usually classed as 'Inner-London'. South London is more likely to be 'Outer-London', while North-East London is more likely to be 'Inner-London'.
    According to this link, only 8% of London Pakistanis live in a deprived neighbourhood, lower than most other groups. The only boroughs there that are classes as inner London are Newham and Wandsworth

    (Original post by fishnow2)
    The following map is of Muslim areas in London, and common sense would say that those in East London were either Pakistani or Bangladeshi:
    The two groups aren't the same though, they generally live in different areas.
    Bangladeshis:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Pakistanis:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Yes there's lots of Pakistanis in East London, but not the majority, and not all of it is considered to be Inner London and not all of it is poor or densely populated.
    (Original post by fishnow2)
    I think it's well established that Pakistanis are one of the worst performing ethnic groups in the UK:
    http://www.economist.com/news/britai...n-they-arrived

    The Bangladeshi/Pakistani ethnic group also tends to do worse than Hindus overseas too.
    There's a reason I put London in bold :facepalm2:
    and it's not well-established that Pakistanis are falling backwards statistically like you said earlier, it's the opposite. The only 2 groups which have seen improvements in the last 7 years are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. http://www.economist.com/news/britai...omen-xx-factor
    There's also those 3 links I posted in the other post which show those two groups are the fastest improving in the UK.
    http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibr...n-changing.pdf
    http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibr...2011%20(1).pdf
    http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibr...oods%20(1).pdf

    Btw British Pakistanis aren't one homogenous ethnic group.
    And Pakistanis generally don't do badly overseas.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not advocating ethnic quotas or even affirmative action. I'm trying to figure out what would happen if a South Indian decided to pursue a career as a MP.

    Would he/she have to deal with ethnicity-related problems from people who work in politics?
    Is UK's political culture generally positive towards South Indians?
    How would a South Indian be received by the general public?

    I think that several of these ethnic minority seats might be safe seats or seats where people vote to avoid the opposition. If this is true I would also add: why are there so few South Indians being put in these positions?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Politics isn't racist or anti female before anyone says that either in the traditional sense....

    In fact it is the opposite if you are a woman or a person of colour then if you have equal merit to a white male then you will be picked to stand to fill a quota.

    Fact


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Politicians are elected because of their policies, not because of their skin colour.
    You keep telling yourself that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ravenous)
    Pakistanis aren't significantly more segregated than other groups i.e. Afro-Caribbeans and Bangladeshis according to this

    Sikhs have exactly the same level as segregation as Pakistanis according to that.
    Comparing Pakistanis to Blacks/Bangladeshis and saying they aren't segregated, is like comparing North Korea to Africa and saying North Korea isn't undeveloped.

    I actually think this is touching on one of the reasons why Pakistanis are well represented in Parliament, since they are as segregated as Blacks or Bangladeshis. The British electoral system favours ethnicities who fill up a handful of constituencies instead of those who spread out thinly over a vast number of constituencies.

    (Original post by Ravenous)
    That's true, there'd need to be a few more to be overrepresented in the house of Paliament. They are overrepresented in the European parliament though.
    There are more Pakistanis in Europe too.

    I don't think there should be x amount of ethnic minority politicians in Parliament. I'm one of those people who believes that it's acceptable to have an completely White Parliament, as long as there's nothing stopping a person from an ethnic minority getting into politics or becoming MP/PM/President.

    (Original post by Ravenous)
    According to link, only 8% of London Pakistanis live in a deprived neighbourhood, lower than most other groups. The only boroughs there that are classes as inner London are Newham and Wandsworth
    Several other sources would disagree with you. East London Muslims (Pakistanis/Bangladeshis) are usually stereotyped as one of the worst performing ethnic groups in the UK, along with Blacks:
    http://www.ioe.ac.uk/45857.html
    http://leftfootforward.org/2015/03/b...be-in-poverty/

    This map shows the Islamic demographics of London:


    West London Muslims tend to hail from the Middle East (and maybe the nation of India too), while East London Muslims tend to hail from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    Pakistanis are centred around Newham, while Bangladeshis are centred around Tower Hamlets. These two boroughs are both inner London and two of the most impoverished boroughs in London.

    Bangladeshis
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Pakistanis:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    It's not well-established that Pakistanis are falling backwards statistically like you said earlier, it's the opposite. The only 2 groups which have seen improvements in the last 7 years are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

    There's also those 3 links I posted in the other post which show those two groups are the fastest improving in the UK.
    Pakistanis are still the worst performing ethnic group in the UK. They achieve below average in both education and income.

    I haven't thought this sentence through properly, but from what I remember of GDP growth statistics, it's easier to statistically grow faster when a country/ethnicity is poor statistically (10% of £100 is £10 (a night in a hostel[?]), 5% of £10,000 is £500 (a night in a hotel)).

    Btw British Pakistanis aren't one homogenous ethnic group.
    I understand that no ethnicity is one homogeneous ethnic group, but Pakistans (along with Bangladeshis) tend to party themselves into one 'ethnic group' centred around East London.

    And Pakistanis generally don't do badly overseas.
    They are the worst performing South Asian ethnic group (the only worse ethnic group being Bangladeshis) in a country and famous for overlooking the "Arab-South Asian" ethnic group and having very restrictive visa rules. The United States acts as the capitalist CBD of the entire earth.

    Pakistanis are still one of the worst performing ethnic groups in nearly every country outside the United States.


    +I'll add this little map I found of Islamophobia in London:

    I didn't realise Islamophobia was getting worse! What on earth happened to make Islamophobia worse in the UK?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Politics isn't racist or anti female before anyone says that either in the traditional sense....

    In fact it is the opposite if you are a woman or a person of colour then if you have equal merit to a white male then you will be picked to stand to fill a quota.

    Fact
    You're right. I sense uncoded affirmative action happening in the UK. This was why I suggested the idea of electing ethnic minority MPs into the House of Lords, keeping the Commons "democratic" but still giving ethnic minorities a voice in Parliament. Uncoded affirmative action is more common in Europe.

    (Original post by Souljer)
    You keep telling yourself that.
    It's odd. I'm usually tolerant of ethnically homogeneous stuff, especially if it's clear that there's no racism preventing ethnic minorities from getting in.

    But in this situation I can't understand why there would be so few South Indians in Parliament.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Left wingers...smh
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I suspect the reason there are Pakistani MP's is that they congregate in inner city areas. Here in Bradford we're at over 25% Muslim and a fair few of those are Pakistani.

    That also explains why Islamaphobia is on the rise. In Bradford, the areas full of Muslims are perceived as being run down and crime ridden. By congregating, I don't think they fit in.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.