Sunder Katwala (sundersays)

Farage claimed net migration is falling due to emigration, when 90% of the 440k fall was a 400k fall in immigration visas.

To say Nick Robinson challenged/traded anecdotes with Nigel Farage over how many people they know in London who have/ haven't experienced crime has zero relevance to my point.

We can expect Reform to promote denial about falls in immigration, as well as shift to integration, deportation.

Eg immigration likely to be > 700k (including students) if when net migration goes negative by 2026-27 (though "who is emigrating" media narratives often mislead: many recent migrants)

It will be good if BBC interviewers at least know the facts/trends: this kind of denial about falling immigration + falling net migration will be a political theme in May 2026, November 2026 (when net migration drops dramatically, close to zero) + in May-Nov 2027 (net migration negative in 2027)

The BBC is being less reflective in this case of Nigel Farage denying that immigration has fallen
bsky.app/profile/sund...

Third time lucky? Is it a significant inaccuracy and will it now be corrected?

BBC apologise for the irrelevant reply. But their new reply does not respond to my complaint about whether his claim was inaccurate so needs to be corrected. Just "Mr Farage's point about net migration unfortunately wasn't picked up at the time of recording".

Just says they challenged other things

Lucy White saying anti-Muslim hostility was simply rational given threat from Muslims, so they should all get out.

One contributor said should not say that about Muslims, eg would not about Jews. Another said Jews were an ethnic group, Muslims not, so should differentiate on expressing prejudices.

"Britain is not a Muslim country - this faith does not belong here. If you want to practice it, go to a Muslim country" AND "Britain is not a Jewish country - this faith does not belong here. If you want to practice it, go to a Jewish country" both lawful + prejudiced. Do we want a boundary or not?

Some analogous challenges: how differentiate/defend legit criticism of govts of Israel, Saudi Arabia/Pakistan, India that may be called antisemitic/antiMuslim/Hinduphobic from prejudice vs Jews, Muslims, Hindus in UK (Not blocs of people responsible for those govts; varied views + sometimes no view)

I think people often find a way to duck the consistency challenges on principles + boundaries by reverting to: but surely more pressing priority today = antisemitism, or anti-Muslim hostility, or extreme Islamism, or not even being allowed to talk about immigration/overt racism against minorities.

No. Incitement needs imminent call to violence. (Elon Musk was legitimising violence but, not in law, inciting it). "Stirring up" depends on context - quite high bar.

"Total remigration - or our children have no future" is extreme + lawful speech. Neo-Nazi groups are mostly lawful until violent

I find your arguments for a definition persuasive. I also find @natsecsoc.bsky.social's arguments for not adopting one persuasive. 😂 I'll guess I'll judge on outcomes, whatever happens. 👍

I'm glad the ambiguous (and weaponised) term Islamophobia is gone. For me, a rare point of agreement with KB. 😮

Analogous challenges of how differentiate/defend legit criticism of govts of Israel, Saudi Arabia/Pakistan or India that may be called antisemitic/antiMuslim/Hinduphobic from prejudice vs Jews, Muslims, Hindus in UK (Not blocs of people responsible for those govts; varied views + sometimes no view)

There is fair + coherent argument that the core principles of anti-hatred definitions should apply to every faith group - with specific education, outreach activiites about how to identify specific antisemitic, anti-Muslim tropes, or indeed tropes about other groups if they are targeted.

I can't think of a logical argument in principle to have a definition to curb racist + prejudicted hateful speech within the law that targets Jews, but not similar/analogous speech targeting Muslims. There is a principled case for neither (though it would fail in practice on egregious content)

His claim that "Their demand to use the word ‘Islamophobia’ hasn’t been granted, but the term ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ amounts to the same thing" is not true of the published definition.

Nothing in here to impede Rushdie's Satanic Verses, Life of Brian; saying Islam+Christianity are fairy tales, etc

Andrew Gilligan is just wrong to claim IHRA definition of antisemitism not intended to curb lawful racist speech. That is its whole point

Its lawful, racist speech to say "Jews can never be loyal to Britain", "our leaders are controlled by a Jewish conspiracy" etc
spectator.com/article/this...

Maybe FT could framed its report on ethnic diversity in society, being reflected proportionately in boardrooms for first time + future demographic shifts over time, rather better! White men are heading towards proportionate share of boardroom seats (male: female still 57-43; white 80-20 minority)

UK firms make progress on diversity targets but ‘significant improvement’ needed The Government-backed Parker Review found ethnic diversity broadly improved across FTSE 350 boards and senior leadership in 2025.

Significant gradual progress is not v newsworthy, so there are relatively few media reports on the new data. The Standard headlines a balanced report on the gap + further progress needed message
www.standard.co.uk/business/bus...

Only 42% of the top 50 private companies have any ethnic diversity in the boardroom, compared to 98% of the FTSE100, (with some variation within private companies that engage with this and those that don't)

The.boardroom progress - partly transparency, partly recognising affinity bias to recruiting in own image - was rapid and the senior management pipelines are more challenging (Parker Review 2026). There are different experiences across/within minority groups.
parkerreview.co.uk/wp-content/u...

Age profile of England and Wales (2021). So the FTSE 100 boardrooms have closed the aggregate gap on the presence of ethnic minorities. (No similar exercises on data-gathering in France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark etc given some allergy to race data - but this is distinct UK progress)

Change needs to be substantive as well as symbolic, but that argument will be less persuasive if made from spheres of economic or cultural power that are not keeping up with the pace set by national politics on diversity at the top – such as the media, academia and civic society. Elected, representative politics is much more ethnically diverse than the backroom special advis- ers or the journalists who cover it. Word-of-mouth networks tend to self-recruit in their own image. Open recruitment and competition can break that down. Progress in one sphere should catalyse pressure to emulate it. Less than fi ve years ago, the majority of FTSE 100 boardrooms were all white. A shared commitment to change this has helped to tackle the ‘affi nity bias’ whereby boards recruited from their own networks and in their own image. More needs to happen to embed that progress. Yet no FTSE 100 company based in the UK has yet had a British- born ethnic minority chief executive. Th e contrast with a succession of ethnic minority Chancellors is striking. Major charities, for example, lag behind the public and private sector on almost every available indicator of ethnic minority leadership, with no comparable sector-wide commitments even to eliminate all-white boards. Th ere is certainly no shortage of anxious talk about diversity defi cits. Th e comfort zone response has often been to acknowledge wider social and structural causes aff ecting society. Th at has not turned into rigorous analysis of the specifi c reasons why charities lag behind nor has it been a suffi cient priority to trigger eff ective action to monitor and narrow these gaps.

One gap for big firms is that CEOs from ethnic minority backgrounds tend to be from abroad (having held similar roles) rather than UK-born. I noted, in 2023, there had not been a British-born ethnic minority CEO yet. That has gone rather under the radar (Is this still true?)

How can charities catch up with Britain’s increasing diversity? - British Future Most organisations will need more confidence in how to talk and act on race – yet charities are now lagging behind, argues Sunder Katwala.

Overall, the third sector lags in third place when it comes to recruiting and retaining ethnic minority staff. There is less intentional & effective focus on narrowing opportunity gaps, despite anxious sectoral debates about language on race + diversity deficits
www.britishfuture.org/how-can-char...

In 2018, 60% of the largest 500 charities had all-white boards. There will have been some incremental progress - maybe catalysed after 2021. Again, a voluntary target and transparent annual reviews would give charities more chance of not lagging behind the progress in the private sector

NHS trust board membership More than half (67.8%) of NHS trusts had at least one board member from the Other ethnic group, and 73 out of 227 trust boards (32.2%) had none.

So a voluntary target to eliminate all-white boards in NHS trusts in 3 years + emulate the Parker process annually would be likely to deliver significant progress within 2-3 years - simply by a process of transparency + accountability
www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/workforce-an...

There is a contrast between progress on ethnic diversity in top FTSE boardroom + some other spheres.

NHS has an esp ethnicly diverse workforce, including at senior levels. But does not emulate FTSE100/350 at top table.

Over a quarter of NHS boards are all-white!
The regional data" poor in London

The Parker Review (2026) has good granular detail across progress, limits and gaps. This remains a vg example of how setting a voluntary target can make a difference - and the scope/limits of ethnic diversity at top table for progression in management pipelines
parkerreview.co.uk/wp-content/u...

Ethnic minority presence in the boardroom.

FTSE 100: 98/100 firms, from 52% in 2019
56% > 1 person
20% of board roles in FTSE100

FTSE 250: 205/350 firms (82%), from 22% in 2019

Parker Review 2026

How to find common ground on dealing with anti-Muslim prejudice Few words have created more heated civic and political debate than “Islamophobia” over the last two decades. There is strong evidence that anti-Muslim prejudice is more widespread than prejudice again...

Me in 2019 on how to find common ground on a polarised debate, when Conservative government was committing to a definition. "Controversy is a reason to have a definition – not a reason to avoid one" and why this is being done should try to pass the "school gate test"
capx.co/how-to-find-...