Anyhoo, I'm always suspicious of clickbait headlines like this. For instance, what other avenues of further education are white British pupils pursuing? I can't imagine a significant proportion are staggering onto the job market or the dole without any additional training or qualifications at all.

Down the page in that article makes some claims that broaden the debate a little:

(cf., the success of Republicans and DINOs in the USA)

All such parties need are publicised policies and the existence of "The Other" being successful
(regardless of how you slice & dice things to create "The Other&quot to make a whole lot of people
start to think that maybe there _is_ "someone against them" ... it doesn't take much to turn
frustration into anger and nationalist parties excel at it.

I was thinking about Scotland (where I live), in case I was too cryptic. I think the prior professional breakdown of the last election's intake of MPs from Scottish constituencies doesn't indicate "less educated", and I don't think the charge applies to those I know who voted for them. But maybe I misunderstand you.

I haven't looked at this report to see if there's a breakdown for the (historically separate) Scottish education system and whether the same trends apply.

The "other" in the Scottish case is Westminster, despite the media and other parties' spin. Having seen yesterday's shameful parliamentary antics around the Devolution Bill, the SNP aren't going to need to lift a finger to foster frustration and anger!

I admit I was thinking of the various English (and certain European) nationalist parties
rather than the Scots Nats or Welsh Nats so yes, that was too broad a brush to use
in those situations. Apologies.

To clarify:
> I think the prior professional breakdown of the last election's intake of MPs from Scottish
> constituencies doesn't indicate "less educated", and I don't think the charge applies to
> those I know who voted for them.

I did not regard the members (MPs/MEPs) of the (more extreme) nationalist parties
as being less educated but I do regard their target audience - the people who vote for
the (more extreme) nationalist parties - as being so.

Sorry that I wasn't clear.

Online, it's often hard to figure out where each other are coming from.

Without wishing to sidetrack at length from the main OP article, I still think that's too broad a brush, though.

Yes, there are no doubt relatively unthinking people (who may or may not have had a "good" education and may or may not be technically "intelligent&quot who are blatant targets for manipulation, but the gap left by the collapse of the other mainstream UK parties in the last election meant that a lot of people we might hope would know "better" - by no means necessarily uneducated ones - bought into the UKIP line and voted for them. The mainstream parties pandered in the same way in the scramble for votes (or worse, because those running them actually believe it) - Labour put out a mug on its paraphernalia website proclaiming it was wedded to "controls on immigration". As I've said before, you don't win elections by saying "Our opponents are right - don't vote for them!"

The media generally do such a fine and superficial and pervasive job of covering issues like this one above and offering simplistic explanations, if any, that it's no wonder people who consider themselves relatively well informed fall for it.

You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to.

The Independent story's too sketchy - and that's a pretty leading headline - to be able to know what conclusions should be drawn from it, let alone how to address it if it reflects real problems or recent trends. I guess I could look at the report itself, but like everyone else, I have other priorities and demands on my time.

Of course, I could no doubt look at the Mail or Express and see if they'd covered the same report, and they'd probably be kind enough to have done my thinking for me, which always saves precious time.

According to this 2014 survey

http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibrary/briefingsupdated/how-are-ethnic-inequalities-in-education-changing.pdf


Chinese, Indian and Black African young people were more likely to go to university than white British people. On the other hand, Pakistani and Bangladeshi youngsters were slightly less likely to do so, and by far the most educationally disadvantaged group was the Gypsies/ Travellers -often white in appearance of course, but not what is usually meant by 'white British'.


Also, I think this headline confounds two different issues. One is that of higher educational ambitions among certain immigrant groups. British Asians tend on average to put a lot of value on education; push their kids to study hard; pay for private tutoring where possible; and think it very important for their children to get into higher education: partly because of cultural values on education; partly because they realize that getting educated is a useful way to counteract the effects of prejudice. (I am not British Asian myself, but I am of predominantly Jewish ancestry, and there are quite similar attitudes among Jews.) Also, this may reflect some bias as to who gets into the country in the first place: people with education, skills and some money will generally find it easier to immigrate, and this may influence their children's educational outcomes.


The other issue is that of a core group of very disadvantaged white British people - some of whom come from generations of poverty; many from communities that were made up of industrial workers until Thatcher destroyed most of British industry. Some of these may well be a clientele for white nationalist groups; but I doubt that competition with other ethnic groups for university places is at the forefront of their minds. Most of them are not at present in a position to even consider university.

I'd agree with just about everything you said.

The Skin