Things that go bump in the street

The borough of Islington, on whose boundaries I live, has been a recognised area of London for centuries. It grew up as a collection of small manors around the Great North Road, and served the City of London with water. On what is now Liverpool Road, cattle used to stop to be fed and watered on the final leg of their journey to Smithfield. Like any other little village in the patchwork making up London, it was served by rocky, pothole-strewn roads, making travelling an uncomfortable business.

Over the past hundred years, there have been huge steps forward. Modern surfaces have been laid. Increasingly sophisticated vehicles have whisked passengers through the network of side streets. By about the 1980s, you would have said that we had pretty much cracked it, transport-wise. And then something rather odd happened.

Bone rattlers

If you drive through Islington today, you are forced either to maintain a maximum speed of around 30 inches an hour, or to resign yourself to being flung out of your seat every ten metres by a series of bone-rattling bumps that give the impression you are traversing a mountain pass known as an accident black spot. You arrive at your destination nauseous, weary and possibly bruised, very much as if you had travelled on horseback. Remarkably, decades after science and technology put an end to the miseries of travel, science and technology - in the form of speed bumps - have brought them back again.

In my neck of the woods, it's impossible not to have an opinion on these modern bogeymen of the road, even if, like me, you don't have a car. Many "concerned citizens", especially those with children, maintain that they're necessary to prevent accidents, because motorists continue to regard the speed limit the way Proust might have regarded a word limit. People who take their opinions largely from Jeremy Clarkson, and newspapers whose headlines always begin "Fury over . . .", regard speed bumps as yet another intrusion of the "nanny state", with its tiresome insistence on protecting people from harm.

It's clear from my caricature of the two camps which one I belong to . . . at least, in theory. In theory, I'm in favour of measures to make our roads safer. But in practice, I bloody hate speed bumps. I hate getting out of a taxi home from Soho feeling as if I've just done the Paris-Dakar Rally. I hate the frustration of taking ten minutes to drive down a street I could walk down in five. The speed bump argument, for me, is an example of the misanthrope's golden ticket: a debate in which I don't sympathise with anyone.

What I think we should be asking ourselves as a society - if I may begin a sentence as grandly as that - is what it tells us about ourselves that, having gone to the effort of building and maintaining a giant system of roads, we have been forced to screw them up because people won't use them responsibly. It reminds me of the way "the taxpayer" has to foot the bill to protect the Pope on his official visits, in case he's attacked by "the public", even though the taxpayer and the public are one and the same thing, so we're essentially paying to prevent ourselves from punching the pontiff. Or the way that, having built the modern miracle of the internet, we now spend a lot of our human ingenuity stopping people from using it to steal our money.

Stupor highways

Is it hopelessly naive to dream that we might one day be able to invent things without then having to devote large amounts of time and money to being protected from those inventions? I suppose the answer is: yes, of course it's hopelessly naive. The genie can't be put back in the bottle. Maybe we have to resign ourselves to the fact that speed limits will always be broken, information superhighways will always chiefly be used not for international co-operation or meetings of minds, but for porn. Perhaps we will never grow out of the habit of getting away with as much as we can.

Still, it's something to aim for. Next time you're juddering back and forth over a collection of speed bumps that would throw a tank off course, just for the privilege of attending your "bums, tums and thighs" exercise class, take time to reflect that they are a metaphor for man's ability to accept the gifts of progress without pushing his luck too far. Or, alternatively, swear, mutter about political correctness gone mad and write a pointed letter to the Evening Standard. Or, do what everyone round our way does: ignore them completely.

Mark Watson is a stand-up comedian and novelist. His most recent book, Crap at the Environment, follows his own efforts to halve his carbon footprint over one year.

This article first appeared in the 21 June 2010 issue of the New Statesman, The age of ideas

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What's to be done about racial inequality?

David Cameron's words on equal opportunities are to be welcomed - now for some action, says Sunder Katwala.

David Cameron made the strongest, clearest and most high profile statement about ethnic inequalities and the need to tackle discrimination ever yet offered by a British Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? … That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful. We can talk all we want about opportunity, but it’s meaningless unless people are really judged equally”, said Cameron.
While the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, this was a powerfully argued Prime Ministerial intervention – and a particularly well-timed one, for three reasons.

Firstly, the Prime Minister was able to root his case in an all-but-universally accepted appeal for equal opportunities. It will always prove more difficult in practice to put political energy and resources behind efforts to remedy discrimination against a minority of the population unless a convincing fairness case is made that values cherished across our whole society are at stake. Cameron’s argument, that any party which tells itself that it is the party of the ‘fair chance’ and ‘the equal shot’ must have a response when there is such clear evidence of discrimination, should prove persuasive to a Conservative Party that has not seen race inequalities as its natural territory. Cameron argued that the same principles should animate responses to discrimination when it comes to race, gender and social class. Put like that, wanting job interviews to be fair – by eradicating conscious and unconscious patterns of bias wherever possible – would strike most Britons as offering as clear a case of the values of fair play as wanting the best baker to win the Great British Bake-Off on television.
Secondly, Cameron’s intervention comes at a potential "tipping point" moment for fair opportunities across ethnic groups. Traditionally, ethnic discrimination has been discussed primarily through the lens of its impact on the most marginalised. Certainly, persistent gaps in the criminal justice system, mental health provision and unemployment rates remain stark for some minority groups. What has been less noticed is the emergence of a much more complex pattern of opportunity and disadvantage – not least as a consequence of significant ethnic minority progress.

Most strikingly of all, in educational outcomes, historic attainment gaps between ethnic minorities and their white British peers have disappeared over the last decade. In the aggregate, ethnic minorities get better GCSE results on average. Ethnic minority Britons are more likely, not less likely, to be university graduates than their fellow citizens. 

As a result of that progress, Cameron’s intervention comes at a moment of significant potential – but significant risk too. Britain’s ethnic minorities are the youngest and fastest-growing sections of British society. If that educational progress translates into economic success, it will make a significant contribution to the "Great British Take-Off" that the Prime Minister envisions. But if that does not happen, with educational convergence combined with current ‘ethnic penalties’ in employment and income persisting, then that potential could well curdle into frustration that the British promise of equal opportunities is not being kept.  Cameron also mirrored his own language in committing himself to both a ‘fight against extremism’ and a ‘fight against discrimination’: while those are distinct challenges and causes, actively pursuing both tracks simultaneously has the potential, at least, depolarise some debates about responses to extremism  - and so to help deepen the broad social coalitions we need for a more cohesive society too.

Thirdly, Cameron’s challenge could mark an important deepening in the political competition between the major parties on race issues. Many have been struck by the increase in political attention on the centre-right to race issues over the last five to ten years. The focus has been on the politics of representation. By increasing the number of non-white Conservative MPs from two to seventeen since 2005, Cameron has sent a powerful signal that Labour’s traditional claim to be ‘the party of ethnic minorities’ would now be contested. Cameron was again able to celebrate in Manchester several ways in which his Cabinet and Parliamentary benches demonstrate many successful journeys of migrant and minority integration in British society. That might perhaps help to ease the fears, about integration being impossible in an era of higher immigration, which the Home Secretary had articulated the previous day.

So symbolism can matter. But facial diversity is not enough. The politics of ethnic minority opportunity needs to be about more than visits to gurdwaras, diversity nights at the party conference fringes and unveiling statues of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. Jeremy Corbyn’s first speech as Labour leader did include one brief celebratory reference to Britain’s ethnic diversity – “as I travelled the country during the leadership campaign it was wonderful to see the diversity of all the people in our country” – and to Labour bringing in more black, Asian and ethnic minority members - but it did not include any substantial content on discrimination. Tim Farron acknowledged during his leadership campaign that the Liberal Democrats have struggled to get to the starting-line on race and diversity at all. The opposition parties too will no doubt now be challenged to match not just the Prime Minister’s rhetorical commitment to challenging inequalities but also to propose how it could be done in practice.

Non-white Britons expect substance, not just symbolism from all of the parties on race inequalites.  Survation’s large survey of ethnic minority voters for British Future showed the Conservatives winning more ethnic minority support than ever before – but just 29 per cent of non-white respondents were confident that the Conservatives are committed to treating people of every ethnic background equally, while 54 per cent said this of Labour. Respondents were twice as likely to say that the Conservatives needto do more to reach out – and the Prime Minister would seem to be committed to showing that he has got that message.  Moreover, there is evidence that ethnic inclusion could be important in broadening a party’s appeal to other younger, urban and more liberal white voters too – which is why it made sense for this issue to form part of a broader attempt by David Cameron to colonise the broad centre of British politics in his Manchester speech.

But the case for caution is that there has been limited policy attention to ethnic inequalities under the last two governments. Restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab decided to give up his role chairing an ethnic minority taskforce for successive governments, unconvinced there was a political commitment to do much more than convene a talking shop. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone did push the CV discrimination issue – but many Conservatives were sceptical. Cameron’s new commitment may face similar challenges from those whose instinct is to worry that more attention to discrimination or bias in the jobs market will mean more red tape for business.

Labour had a separate race inequalities manifesto in 2015, outside of its main election manifesto, while the Conservative manifesto did not contain significant commitments to racial inequality. The mid-campaign launch in Croydon of a series of race equality pledges showed an increasing awareness of the growing importance of ethnic minority votes - though the fact that they all involved aiming for increases of 20 per cent by 2020 gave them a slightly back-of-the-envelope feel. 

Prime Ministerial commitments have an important agenda-setting function. A generation ago the Stephen Lawrence case opened the eyes of middle England to racist violence and police failures, particularly through the Daily Mail’s persistent challenging of those injustices. A Conservative Prime Minister’s words could similarly make a big difference in the mainstreaming of the issue of inequalities of opportunity. What action should follow words? Between now and next year’s party conference season, that must will now be the test for this Conservative government – and for their political opponents too. 

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.