Going by the big picture of Shami and the main name being touted by Afua Hirsch here in the Guardian, I think that’s a pretty safe bet.
There’s also a good profile piece by Hugh Muir in today’s Guardian. Two other people have talked up Shami to me in recent days. I wasn’t initially, but I am persuaded now.
Iain Dale lists three reasons why lefties have got it in for Phillips: he’s not leftie enough, he’s not managed the transition from one interest group (race) to various properly, and that he’s a bad manager. I’d probably agree on all three counts. Although I see no problem with lefties wanting their values asserted, I do have some sympathy for the view that the race debate has moved on much further than many race-activists were prepared to admit. I’ve pointed out on various panel debates that opening up the debate on multiculturalism was probably a good thing. Sometimes I was booed. Oh well.
I think the reason why Trevor doesn’t have many supporters now is because he preferred to make his points through media soundbites than take on those activists on their own turf and win those debates.
But I’m persuaded that Shami could be the right person because, as one said, equalities needs a rights-based approach rather than a media soundbites-based approach. I think this is exactly right. Shami would do a better job of using the language of civil rights, as she has recently, to win over public debates. And that approach, if it included the social rights of working class whites, would do a much better job of selling equality than Trevor’s confused approach could ever do. The problem is, I doubt she’d take it.
|Post to del.icio.us|
Filed in: Civil liberties,Race politics