Focus on the Creative Industries Series: Sadiq Khan MP on the importance of the arts to London

By Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP.

In the latest instalment of  our Focus on the Creative Industries Series, Sadiq Khan MP discusses the importance of the arts to London.

Politicians discussing the arts and creative industries can often seem forced and contrived with little knowledge of the subject they’re talking about other than what they’ve been given on the latest zeitgeist crib sheet. I realise that I may set myself up for a fall immediately but the arts, and the fruits of the creative industries, is something that us Londoners are probably more exposed to than in most other cities in the UK.

But what does it mean to London? Across the UK, the creative and cultural industries have predominance in London and the South East. More than 40% people working in the industry do so in these regions.  25% of the people employed in these industries are in London, compared with 13% of the overall employed population based in London.

We see then that as an employer and revenue generator it’s a big deal for London. And it’s not just West End theatres or major art galleries that contribute to this. We have a wealth of smaller community based organisations, including in my own constituency TARA Arts, a theatre venue which hosts and presents theatre and other live performances, as well as facilitating the development of emerging young and mid-career artists. I’m also one of the patrons of the Polka Theatre in Wimbledon, which specialises in youth theatre. Alongside each show Polka have a learning programme which includes school visits and workshops and this helps children explore and develop creatively. This development and incubation of new ideas is something which the more community based groups do so well in London, for example the renowned Battersea Arts Centre (BAC) which, in its own words, ‘pioneers new practice in contemporary theatre’. They proved this to great effect with ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’ which having begun at BAC then moved to the Edinburgh Fringe and then to the West End and to the United States. This may be an obvious example but it is a good one.

Why are community organisations so important? It’s quite simple really, they are the ones who can be the first, and sometimes only, form of interaction between local people and the arts. It’s here and also in schools that the flame of creativity can be ignited. Whether that be by music, theatre, visual arts – it can be the thing that encourages the budding creative to investigate further. Young or old, the arts and creative industries can also bring people together across communities. The collective experience of taking part in arts based activities, or even just enjoying them as part of an audience can be something that is treasured, and also something that can open up debate. London’s cultural diversity also means that the range of art being created in the city is truly global, which in itself serves to promote understanding of the differences between us, and more importantly the similarities. This building of relationships through social interaction relates to what the social scientist Robert Putnam would call ‘social capital’, and the creation of social networks which in themselves have value. I agree that the creation of these social networks is undoubtedly a good thing as they bring people together who may not otherwise meet.

From a politician’s point of view then, I see the arts in London as performing a number of different roles. It’s an employer, a revenue generator, an educator, a community service and also something that can bring a great deal of pleasure to millions of people. It’s therefore important that politicians support the arts and creative industries where possible and make sure that they are available to all. It is essential in these tough economic times that we do not see a retreat of arts organisations away from the community level but that we try to nurture creativity as much as possible.

Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP is Member of Parliament for Tooting and Shadow Minister for London.

Lawyers Tackling Global Poverty

The spring issue of Anticipations will be hitting doorsteps in the next couple of weeks. In this issue we turn our attention to International Development. Here John Bibby, Head of Communications and Policy at Advocates for International Development, takes a look at the role lawyers can play in helping to tackle global poverty.

By John Bibby. 

Ask someone to say what they think people working to tackle global poverty look like and, in general, they will name someone distributing food aid in a famine or doctor treating cholera in a refugee camp. Or – in the run-up to the G8 they might focus on politicians. Rarely, though, would anyone think to mention a qualified solicitor sat at their desk in the offices of a City law firm or barrister in their chambers.

This is now, thankfully, changing. An increasing number of politicians, policy makers and development organisations are beginning to see that the law can be both a barrier to development, where it is poor or unenforced, and a weapon for development, where good laws are upheld. In turn, an increasing number of lawyers are seeing the contribution that they can make with their legal skills. At Advocates for International Development (A4ID), which was established by a group of UK lawyers in 2006, we have seen interest from lawyers offering their skills on a pro bono basis increase every year.

Much of the support that A4ID lawyers provide is not particularly glamorous. They are – by and large – sat at their desks in City offices or chambers. But the support that lawyers provide through A4ID does empower others to work in disaster areas by, for example, giving charities greater clarity about their liabilities and legal risks when sending employees and volunteers to hazardous environments or supporting them to open new offices in unfamiliar legal jurisdictions with different regulations.

This does not mean, however, that the support that lawyers can give in the fight against global poverty is just isolated to back office facilitation. Lawyers working with us are also making an impact on the world stage through, for example, supporting the ongoing and arduous negotiations on the International Arms Trade Treaty, advising governments in the developing world on bilateral investment treaties and providing the basis for campaigns for legal reform by conducting in-depth comparative research.

The value of this support goes beyond a mere pounds and pence donation, but it is also important to recognise that by doing it on a pro bono basis, lawyers are saving development organisations money. In fact, since 2006 lawyers working through A4ID have provided over £25 million of legal support to charities, organisations and developing country governments, which could instead be spent on making a difference on the frontline.

Despite the progress that has been made in changing perception, however, there is still much more potential for the law to be used to tackle poverty. Every single aspect of the fight against world poverty – from AIDS to fair trade and climate change to gender equality – has a legal perspective that deserves recognition and exploration. If lawyers continue to embrace this agenda then the solutions to seemingly intractable global problems will be easier to find, but if neglected then the work of otherwise well-meaning development organisations, donors and charities will only ever be a sticking plaster.

John Bibby is the Head of Communications and Policy, Advocates for International Development.

British double standards and the Arab Spring

Freelance journalist Daniel Wickham examines British duplicity following the revolutions in the Middle East.

With reports of Russian made cluster bombs being used by the Assad regime, the Kremlin has found its reputation here in the west increasingly in tatters.

But is it really any great surprise that a government with a human rights record as dubious as Russia’s might have unsavoury friends? Much more surprising, however, is the long list of dictatorships and repressive regimes which Britain, an otherwise exemplary liberal democracy, allies itself to.

Only recently, the Home Office declared Saudi Arabia to be a close friend and ally of the British government, despite the Kingdom ranking as the seventh least democratic country in the 2011 Democracy Index. Our support is far more than just verbal- Saudi Arabia is the British arms trade’s number one customer, with British ‘controlled goods’ exports to the regime valued at £4,069,920,068 by the ‘Campaign Against the Arms Trade.’

This fact alone is enough to put into serious doubt the widely accepted claim that the British government is a supporter of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. But such doubts are never found in the mainstream media. Despite knowledge of our support for undemocratic regimes even during the Arab Spring, the media faithfully follows the government line- Britain is devoted to promoting democracy in the Arab world.

If properly scrutinised, however, our record of ‘promoting’ democracy and human rights speaks for itself. A list of Britain’s allies in the region reads like a who’s who of dictators and human rights abusers. From President Khalifa of the UAE to the Sultan of Oman and the King of Bahrain, Britain’s allies in the Middle East have all presided over a sharp increase in human rights violations during the Arab Spring. Crackdowns on demonstrations, torture and even massacres have been reported, but still British arms pour in.

In Bahrain, Amnesty international believe as many as 60 people have been killed. And yet, when 28 countries joined to condemn the violations in the UN Human Rights Council, the British government refused. Fortunately for them, the media remained silent.

Understandably, they have been much more vocal about the atrocities of the Assad regime- the crimes of the Sultan of Oman or President Khalifa of the UAE hardly even bear comparison to Assad’s bloody rule of terror. With thousands dead, and no end in sight, the situation in Syria is desperate.  But talk of intervention seems hypocritical. How can Britain justify intervening against one despot in the name of democracy, and yet continue to support dictators elsewhere?

The British role in the Arab Spring has been riddled with double standards- overthrowing Qaddafi on one hand, supporting Ben Ali and Mubarak on the other. And yet the government still presents itself as a staunch supporter of democracy, championing freedom for all Arab people. The onus for questioning this claim is on the mainstream media, who have a responsibility to do more to hold the government to account for their unsavory alliances.

So before we even consider intervention against a brutal despot in Syria, Britain must look in the mirror and address our own record of support for dictators in the Arab world. Only when the government can proudly say Britain supports democracy for all people, and mean it, can the notion of intervention even be considered.

Daniel Wickham is a gap year student, youth worker and freelance journalist going on to read history and politics at university

US Election: 10 Reasons Obama Won

The most striking aspect of the US Presidential Election results was how much of a landslide Obama won by.

After months and months of the media saying it would be neck and neck, Obama cruised to victory winning every swing state except North Carolina.

The main reasons why Obama won and why Romney lost are:

1. The media got it wrong. It was never as close as they predicted in the swing states. The media simply wanted to get a good story.

2. The Maths. Obama had a much easier electoral route to the White House, having several paths to gain the required 270 electoral college votes, Romney was in a more difficult post having to win Ohio to even have a shot at the top job.

3. Women. Women, the largest demographic group, were turned off by the extremist social policies of the GOP. The Democrats claim the Republicans were conducting a ‘War on Women’ was effective.

4. Social Issues. The extremist position taken by a significant portion of the GOP is at odds with mainstream America.

5. Changing demographics. The GOP needs to find a way to appeal to Latinos and ethnic minorities if it is to gain power again.

6. Auto bailout. Obama’s victory in Michigan and Ohio was an endorsement of the Obama administrations intervention.

7. Economics. People rejected the Republican Party’s right wing economic position. It’s very significant Obama was the only President to win re-election in an economy this bad since FDR. Alarm bells should be ringing for the GOP.

8. Mitt. Mitt was portrayed in the media as uncharismatic, rich and out-of-touch. Crucially, he didn’t articulate his vision for America or what he stood for well enough.

9. Get Out The Vote. The Obama Campaign’s grassroots campaigning expertise is unrivalled in modern politics.

10. Rejection of the Right Wing. The Republican Party has moved too far to the Right on both economic and social issues, moving away from the views of mainstream America.

How does the Republican Party move forward following this crushing defeat? There are 2 options:

1. Blame it on Mitt, a moderate, and the extreme right continues to determine the future of the Republican Party. The reason why we saw extreme right candidates like Akin this time around is they raise money for the GOP, and registered Republicans vote for them in the Primary. As a result, they stubbornly persist to be very influential within the party.

2. Rejection of the extreme right and the GOP moves to the centre in an attempt to reclaim the middle ground.

Moving forwards the GOP has to move towards the centre in order to reclaim the White House. It needs someone who will shake the Republican Party to its core- a candidate who can appeal to women and Latinos (two very important demographic groups).

Marco Rubio springs to mind in that he ticks all the boxes but the jury’s out on whether he is charismatic enough to win round independents. Only time will tell if the Republicans can pick that once-in-a-generation, Bill Clinton-type figure to lead them to victroy in 2016.

Marielle O’Neill is a member of the Young Fabians Executive Committee

Ensuring quality of life for an ageing population

More than 10 million people are currently over 65. 

Since 2007, the number of people over 65 has outstripped the number under 16.  By 2050 the number of people over 65 will have doubled.  The consequence of not addressing this massive demographic shift is an intolerable increase in healthcare costs that could cripple the NHS and plunge thousands of pensioners into severe poverty.  There is no doubt that the time to act is now.

To successfully address the problem of an ageing population, it is important first to consider the unique requirements of the current elderly generation.

In the 20^th century life expectancy rose by 30 years. However, this gain is meaningless if older people are unable to enjoy a decent standard of living. We should take a broad perspective when seeking to improve the quality of life of those who have spent decades contributing to our country. A fundamental reform of the pensions and benefits available to the elderly, keeping the principle of providing the highest quality of life to as many as possible at their heart, is essential.

In order to achieve this people must start by saving more for retirement.  The burden on the state from those who don’t save is argument enought for making these savings compulsory.  State pensions should aim to help those who need help from the state only and be based on length of time in UK employment rather than quantity of contributions. After all, the factory worker needs more support from the state in his elderly years than the City lawyer.  The new flat rate state pension completely misses the point in this regard.

Healthcare already considers quality of life in making treatment decisions for elderly patients.  The use of the Liverpool Care Pathway and Do Not Resucitate Orders provide doctors with the means of ensuring unpleasant and unwanted treatments are not provided to terminal patients.

However all too often elderly patients cannot communicate treatment decisions and can be left in a debilitated state receiving care they don’t want or care that causes them pain. We must make it a priority to improve patient involvement when it comes to end-of-life decisions.

The advanced directive system has long provided a means of recording patients wishes for their future care. However, few use this system, robbing carers of valuable insights into their patients’ treatment preferences. This is a great shame as it could be used to prevent treatments which are both unwanted and expensive being used to extend life without providing quality of life.

Beyond all of this there is a real need to ensure through regulation good quality residential and nursing home facilities, so that they are not seen as places where people go to die but as homes where people can live out the remainder of their lives to the full.

In reforms aimed at dealing with the issues of welfare and healthcare for an ageing population, effective legislation must take account of quality of life.  We must seek to ensure that poverty or poor health never curtail individual’s freedoms when it comes to making decisions about their old age.

Anil Abeyewickreme is a Young Fabians member 

Gay Tories: an oxymoron?

The phrase ‘gay Tory’ simply makes no sense. This is not because it juxtaposes two groups whose interests are as far apart as Iran and the US, but because it suggests that many gay people are shamefully ignorant of their party’s credentials as one which tried to block the repeal of section 28 and one where MPs view gay marriage as more terrifying than European integration.

I shudder to think that people who vote thinking that the Tories offer them a better deal economically (although this is untrue) are voting against their own self-interest.

The Tories have given the job of Women and Equalities Minister to Maria Miller, a woman who voted in favour of Nadine Dorries’ attempt to limit abortion and force women to have the ‘impartial’ counseling of church groups, and who has voted against every single bit of legislation on gay rights that Labour introduced- when she bothered to turn up, that is.

If it were up to her (until her recent and miraculous U-turn, à la Theresa May), gay people wouldn’t be able to adopt and wouldn’t be covered under the Equalities Act. In fact, until last week, she’d been silent on gay marriage.

Many gay people like to think that the drive for equality is over, that Gay Pride is redundant and everything has been achieved. They are wrong. The civil rights campaign is not over. It can’t be: anyone who has canvassed in some of the UK’s poorest housing estates or has dealt with MPs casework and seen the effects of cuts to local services, of cuts to Citizens Advice bureaux, cuts to EMA and Building Schools For The Future, will know that.

We must enfranchise the young, those unable to afford £9,000 tuition fees or even the bus journey to school. We must enfranchise the unemployed, those on benefits, bringing them into society and giving them the chance to succeed. This is the new frontier for those who have campaigned for gay rights in the past.

Yet the thinking espoused by some gay people now defies logic. A society that works together is a society that enriches those at the top as well as those at the bottom. Just as gay people can now work without fear of discrimination, no one should allow disabled workers at Remploy to face unemployment. Long excluded from many workplaces, gay people should not sit by and allow women to lose their independence because of cuts to children’s services.

Gay people might not have to worry about many of these issues, but they, like everyone in the UK, benefitted directly from Labour’s attempts to make society richer. If we ignore the fact that Labour enabled gay people not to be discriminated at school by repealing the Tory section 28 and equalizing the age of consent, that Labour allowed gay people to defend their country openly for the first time, Labour’s record is much deeper. In fact, by sharing the fruits of economic development with all, between 1998 and 2011, not only did productivity per hour grow faster than the rest of Europe, but real disposable income per capita rose faster than in the Europe and in the US.

Equality brings riches and as long as the Government believes that some people deserve unfair treatment because they are ‘plebs’, Britain will continue its social as well as economic decline.

So, this is the time for gay people to stand together, not just with other gay people, but side by side with people who are still disenfranchised: single mothers, young people, the unemployed, the disabled, and millions more. People, in short, whom the Tories have kept at arms length.

Alex Glasner is a Young Fabians member

Caring is not something that happens to ‘other people’

As the Government dithers over implementing the social care funding changes recommended in the Dilnot report, much of the focus on social care in politics and the media has been on the funding and quality crisis in formal and institutional care.

However this debate risks obscuring the experiences of informal carers – 12% of the population in 2009/10 – and the devastating effect care can have without proper support

Caring is a financial leveller.  Almost every carer I spoke to as part of my research had faced financial pressures as a result of caring and/or due to someone in the family experiencing long-term illness or disability.  Very few had sufficient wealth to protect their lifestyle, or employers flexible enough to support them to continue to work and care long term.  This has financial effects that are dramatic at the time of caring, but which can last far beyond the period of care.

The costs are multiple.  Some are associated with disability and ill health: extra heating, transport to visit the care recipient, or to go to appointments.  Special diets, equipment, extra washing, incontinence pads.  For those who were getting older, or caring for someone with a long-term condition the threat of residential care loomed large on the horizon.  This can feel an impossible problem, and is poorly understood.  Carers simply cannot plan towards it.  Those caring for children unlikely ever to be able to look after themselves worry about what would happen to their children when they were gone.

And there’s the opportunity cost, lost earnings, doubled if your spouse also has to stop work to care, or is unable to work due to their own ill health. 26% of all working-age carers report having to change their work patterns, although this rose to 40% amongst those providing more than 20 hours of care a week.  Some stop work completely, others reduce their hours, with long-lasting effects on their careers.

Carers spoke of inflexible employers, even in the public sector. Many felt unable to do their job well because it required travelling that would have put the person they were supporting at risk, or they had to leave to deal with emergencies, or make frequent phone calls.  Those caring for children found it hard to find work within school or nursery hours. The battle to get appropriate formal support was often a further barrier to work.

As local authority care is further rationed, cut, or privatised, there will be greater pressure on family carers to step in.  Few carers feel they have a choice to care: it’s a situation they find themselves in, because they love the care recipient, or feel obliged, because there is no-one else.

This then leaves them with even less choice and control over working and their finances. If employment rights are further reduced by the Conservatives, carers will be left even more vulnerable.

Securing social care funding should be the starting point.  We must consider how we can best support carers. How do we ensure people are given a choice between caring and working? How can we provide high quality, affordable alternatives? Access to education and training?  Comprehensive information and advice to help carers navigate the complexities of the welfare state at a time of high stress?  Access to mental health support?

These are complex and urgent questions, and faced with a rapidly ageing population, we can’t afford to delay seeking answers any longer.

Caring is not something that happens to ‘other people’, something that can be planned for, or predicted.  It is something that can happen to any of us, at any time, and we need to place it at the centre of social policy if we want to ensure that it does not have catastrophic effects on families’ lives.

Sarah Hutchinson is a member of the Fabian Women’s Network

Apprenticeships: Put your money where your mouth is

At this month’s Labour Conference, Young Fabian Victoria Desmond presented in front of a ‘Dragon’s Den’ of panellists her ideas for alleviating youth unemployment. In this article, she explains how restructuring apprenticeships may hold the key. 

Apprenticeships have the potential to transform lives, and bring a whole generation of eager young people into the workforce. However, the current system is not fit for purpose, so I came to the Young Fabians with a comprehensive plan of how to reform it for the better.

The way that I sought to do this was to conduct an interview with a director of Tru-Cal Metrology Ltd- a calibration firm that specialises in precision engineering.

Together we came up with the following policy suggestion:

Firstly, we looked at the public private partnerships around which apprenticeships are currently organised. The current system is flawed and we therefore need to analyse how we can make these more effective. They need to be modelled around a bargain between the state and small businesses or in partnership with the proposed ‘British Investment Bank’ so that apprenticeships can be adequately funded.

These fully funded  programmes could then provide vocational qualifications alongside practical work place experience that is paid by the employer and subsidised to reach the basic level of the living wage- not the minimum wage.

Secondly, these apprenticeships must be focused in three specific sectors:

A)     The manufacturing industry,

B)      research and development and

C)      green industries

We also recommended that a fourth apprenticeship scheme should be modelled to target secretarial work. This particular programme would focus on giving people the skills needed to efficiently work and run an office, use office technology such as telephones and fax machines, and equip people with basic skills such as typing. Practical skills like these are already taught in bespoke secretarial colleges. Now it’s time to roll out the opportunities offered here to jobless young people.

Our third proposal is that the government offers a national insurance employer contribution holiday. We recommend employer contributions are either cut in half or eliminated completely for each employee aged under 25 for a limited period of time.

Ideally, we feel that this scheme should be in place for one year. However, this may be financially unsustainable, and therefore we reckon that for the policy to be effective and economically viable, a period of 6 months should be set as the limit. Funding for this national insurance employer contribution could be found from one of the following:

A)     a wealth tax,

B)      financial transactions tax or

C)      a tax on bankers’ bonuses.

We would say that the fairest way to fund this scheme would be via the financial sector, as a gesture of reconciliation for the damage that they have inflicted on the prospective future of my generation.

I gathered from my interview that the director felt that the specific industry that he worked in was in danger of becoming extinct in this country, calling metrology “a dying art”. There are few courses teaching these skills. I asked how long it would take to train an apprentice to equip them to work in the calibration industry; he specified a minimum of three years. He said he would take on apprentices under the proviso that the government would fund the costs of sending the employee to college and contribute to the wage bill.

In a damning indictment of current policy, he stated that in the 18 years that he had been running his business he had never once been given a single penny from the government to help sustain his industry- let alone seen any funds for an apprenticeship scheme.

This shows more than anything that when it comes to apprenticeships, the government simply must put its money where its mouth is. If it delivers on its promises to the youth, the government can save us from becoming the ‘unemployed generation.’

Victoria Desmond is a Young Fabian member

Black History Month 2012 – Diane Abbott MP

Happy Black History Month! BHM is a time to reflect on the history, culture, challenges and achievements of Britain’s black community. This is a month for all of us, regardless of ethnic origin, to celebrate the diversity of our country and the experiences of our black comrades.

To mark this occasion I have commissioned articles on the themes surrounding BHM from two of the UK’s leading black politicians.

Here, Diane Abbott, Britain’s first female black MP talks about her experiences. Read David Lammy’s excellent overview of black history in the UK here.

For more information on Black History Month and events in your area please look at the official website. If you are holding any events in your area please let me know and I’ll be happy to publicise them.

All the best
James Hallwood | @jhallwood
Equalities Officer

People of colour have been moving to Britain since the days of Elizabeth I. The major influx of migrants, however, moved to Britain in the wake of World War II. Many settled in our big cities from Birmingham to Manchester, Liverpool to London. They brought their families with them and went on to become nurses, teachers, bus drivers and local government officers and made huge advances, in all fields’ right across British society.

Indeed, Britain is a very different place to the country that it was when my parents left Jamaica in the 1950s. At that time it was intolerant of difference, despite the fact so many children of the Commonwealth helped rebuild Britain in the late 1940s.

Coupled with campaigns and a constant movement for social change, race relations legislation developed over decades to alter the way Britain delivered for, and represented her minority groups. Finally, we were given the chance to fully participate in society and hold equal standing.

As we celebrate Black History Month this year, I also celebrate 25 years since my election as the first Black woman member of Parliament. I was elected alongside Bernie Grant, Paul Boateng and Keith Vaz as Britain’s first four Black MPs – an important landmark in Black British history. Strictly speaking although Bernie, Paul and I were definitely the first MPs of African descent, Keith was following in the footsteps of earlier Asian MPs. But, at the height of 1980s Black activism African, Arab, Asian and Caribbean communities had come to realise the importance of unity in our common struggle against racism and under-representation. We campaigned under the political term ‘Black’ – a term that I am pleased to see that many trade unions and campaigning organisations proudly maintain. Back then we were told we wouldn’t win but 23 years later Britain celebrated the record election of 27 Black MP’s.

Campaigns for increased representation have often been criticised and misunderstood. Advocating fiercely for increased Black representation in politics, does not equate to voting for someone simply because they are Black. In the 21st century, a winning progressive movement must reflect the views and concerns of all groups. A lack of diversity and a lack of representation in any institution is instantly reflected in debate, policies and implementation. If we do not have a political leadership which looks like the community around us then it will lack legitimacy. We need a political leadership that reflects our increasingly globalised world and Britain today – not the Britain of the 1950’s.

Black people have achieved many things politically in Britain, but we still have so much more to do. There is a new generation of young, proud members of the Black community emerging on Britain’s political scene. They are joining political parties, campaigning in elections and making a change. They are conscientiously determined to make their own mark in history – actions that make someone like me hugely proud.

Black History Month 2012 – David Lammy MP

Happy Black History Month! BHM is a time to reflect on the history, culture, challenges and achievements of Britain’s black community. This is a month for all of us, regardless of ethnic origin, to celebrate the diversity of our country and the experiences of our black comrades.

To mark this occasion I have commissioned articles on the themes surrounding BHM from two of the UK’s leading black politicians.

Here, David Lammy gives an excellent overview of black history in the UK. Read about Diane Abbot’s experiences as Britain’s first female black MP here.

For more information on Black History Month and events in your area please look at the official website. If you are holding any events in your area please let me know and I’ll be happy to publicise them.

All the best
James Hallwood | @jhallwood
Equalities Officer

Black History is too often taught in isolation. For a month we ask people to recall remarkable contributions by black Britons as if they occurred in isolation. Rarely do we challenge people – old and young – to connect the events over the centuries and understand how their impact continues to reverberate today. Fortunately, this year presents the perfect opportunity to see things differently.

The calendar year began with the verdict in the Stephen Lawrence murder case. This was the most high-profile, unsolved, racially motivated murder in living memory. It is impossible to underestimate how much this case resonated in the black community in Britain. Here were the different facets of racism in Britain laid bare for all to see – a young man, beaten up because of the colour of his skin, and the institution charged with investigating the crime were indifferent to his family’s appeal for justice because of the colour of their skin.

I was the same age as Stephen and I spent my first adult years watching in horror as the justice system repeatedly failed the Lawrence family. And I was not alone. The case had roused mainstream British society. The Daily Mail plastered the faces of the suspects on its front page under the caption “Murderers”. Prejudice that the establishment so normally felt compelled to cover up and deny was now actively being exposed through the MacPherson inquiry. Thousands united together – black and white, young and old – not only to bring Stephen’s killers to justice but to bring about real change to the institutions that had let his family down so badly.

So this Black History Month we will celebrate Doreen Lawrence, mother of Stephen and tireless campaigner for justice. But her bittersweet victory cannot be seen in isolation. It was at the start of the 19th Century when the slow march against racial prejudice began with William Wilberforce and the abolitionists triumphing in ending the slave trade. In the second-half of the 20th Century, this movement gathered pace. The sermons of Martin Luther King and the resistance of Rosa Parks echoed out of the buses and church halls of Georgia and Alabama during the 1950s and 60s. Within years, the anti-racism message had diffused throughout America and across the Atlantic. By the 1980s, the ground-breaking findings of the Scarman report shone a light on racism in the police and the anti-apartheid movement organised people of all colours and creeds in a boycott of South African goods. Brick-by-brick, decade-by-decade, the foundations of the campaign that finally secured the conviction against two of Stephen’s killers was built.

Inevitably, history breeds more history. Never had the antiracism message been as ubiquitous as when Doreen Lawrence fronted it. Her fight became a national campaign because so many mothers (and fathers) could understand her grief and felt her anger, regardless of the colour of her skin. Because of this and the achievements of sporting pioneers like Daley Thompson and John Barnes, the widely held view that being black and being British was mutually exclusive rapidly fell away.

Their toil, exertion and eventual triumph was one of the many hundreds of factors that gave us the most memorable and important images of this summer’s Olympics. No one will forget Jessica Ennis, a mixed race woman from Sheffield, ran, jumped and threw her way to Heptathlon Gold and in doing so became the poster girl for the Olympics and the British summer. Nor will they forget Mo Farah, a refugee from Somalia at the age of 8, doing a lap of honour draped in a British flag in front of 80,000 British people of all races, ages and religions cheering him, their fellow Brit, on. These are images that at the time of Doreen Lawrence’s arrival in Britain in the early 1960s would have been entirely inconceivable but now they are memories tattooed on the consciousness of a country that is increasingly at ease with its multicultural self. These achievements were built on the back of breakthroughs by others and they will provide the platform for future generations to make even more breakthroughs in the years ahead.

The strap line of London 2012 was to ‘inspire a generation’ but the same could be said of Black History Month.