On Wednesday I outlined the problems with Theresa May’s Race Audit. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the audit, but I do have a big problem with the rhetoric, the bit where she called us all racists. The new-fangled website telling us all about how racist we are (or how race correlates with disadvantage) is here.

We all know May, or Nurse Ratched as I like to call her, loves a good audit. What she cannot audit she will review. What she cannot review she will inquire into. There is no injustice that cannot be remedied through an audit, no unfairness that can withstand review, no wrong that cannot be righted by inquiry.

So, I’d like to ask: when is May going to do an audit on how many children who are born into the married family end up unemployed or in jail? What is the unemployment rate for those who finish GCSE/A-level or NVQ, get married and have children in that order? What is the school exclusion rate for boys raised without fathers?

I sense Nurse Ratched would not have an audit on that. That would be ‘nasty’. But calling everyone else a racist – that’s just fine. We are all just to accept this massive exercise in virtue-signalling by our good PM, even though it is at our expense. This race auditing nonsense is a very subtle switch from focusing on culture to looking at race.

This switch is a handy way of blaming society for other individual bad decisions, as individuals are not responsible for their race, so these different outcomes must be someone else’s fault. Yours in fact. Whereas if culture is to blame, this focuses on individual responsibility, so the less said about that the better. To discuss personal responsibility, to discuss parenting, to discuss culture is to be ‘nasty’ and we cannot have that.

May has already said she is going to audit school exclusions based on race. Fine. I would also like to know, as I said, how many of those excluded are being raised without fathers. Let’s have some numbers on that.

So ConWomers, if you have any other ideas, any other outcomes that need auditing, please do let us know below.


  1. How about we stop racially categorising people. As Rebel Priest Jules Gomes has pointed out better than I (But I have known for years) keeping records of such things is as important as hair colour or eye colour. The practice of racial categorisation is racialist in it self.

    • We seem to be a million miles from that and travelling in the opposite direction. Identity group politics is big with politicians and they love to categorise.

    • Indeed,

      As the great actor Morgan Freeman replied, when asked in an interview how to combat racism:

      “Stop talking about it.”

        • You are correct sir – I almost cheered when I saw it. I always thought that organisations like CRE and NBPA only serve to highlight racial differences and are both patronising and inherently ‘racist’ in the true sense of the word (where is the equivalent National White Police officers Association for example).

  2. The Abbotopotamus ranted that black mothers would take a bullet for their children, but she wouldn’t admit that their fathers wouldn’t get a job to stay and raise them.

    • Every single person resident in the UK should be held up to identical moral
      & legal standards.
      Failure to do so is a failure to admit that the UK is a genuine country, just a
      collection of tribes.

      • But I think that’s the idea – divide and conquer – reduce Britain to what it was pre-Alfred – a collection of tribes. Government legislation on Localism is precisely how this is going to be achieved. Localism=tribalism.

        • Good point.
          Blair was attempting to reduce the UK to regions to suit EU objectives.
          Multiculturalism, working in another direction, is essentially racist
          with the.result that our country, the UK is divided as follows
          1. 3.5 nations, subsidised by English taxpayers, who have no government of their own, unlike the other 2.5, but are allowing the Scot Nats to humiliate them.
          2 Multiculturalism encouraging immigrants to import & magnify the habits that they should have left behind.
          Exacerbated by alien law courts which make totally illegal judgements that are followed by the type of immigrant who uses them.
          Ditto the Government recognising & rewarding polygamy.
          3 The North South divide in England that guarantees many Labour votes
          from people who have been harmed by Labour policies.
          Exacerbated by massive electoral fraud.
          4 Urban rural divisions, with rural always losing out
          5. The ancient capital of the English, London, no longer even essentially
          British, let alone English.
          6. Class & wealth divisions as great as ever.
          All the above egged on by the BBC, which we are forced to pay for.

          • When you said “localism = tribalism” one need look no further for an example than the way the SNP run their campaigns. Pure tribal rivalry.

  3. How about an audit of those in positions of power that keep telling the rest of us what to do. Beginning with May herself. The audit should cover all aspects of fitness to govern, including measuring intelligence, common sense, knowledge of British history and economics, proven business acumen (or otherwise), previous political activities and allegiances, and experience of living the same lives and in the same localities as the majority who have to put up with the decisions of that ruling elite.

    Right now, I cannot think of anything more in need of a comprehensive audit without fear or favour, with the results published in full for us all to read. And let’s get it done and dusted before the next general election please.

  4. We are told in this “audit” that black people are more likely to be victims of crime than whites. Perhaps we could also be told who is committing the crimes against black people. If the criminals were disproportionately white there would be cause for concern, but I suspect it is more likely to be “Black on Black” crime as in America.

    • You are perfectly correct and delving into the data shows that correlation. Contrary to TV dramas criminals rarely travel far to commit their crimes.

    • In the 1970s, or 80s, the Metropolitan Police inadvertently released figures showing that in London black men committed half the recorded muggings, though forming only about 9% of the (presumably male) population. They hastily withdrew the figures, and have never made the same ‘mistake’ again.

        • Correct. Incidentally, when are the government going to look into the vast discrepancy between the number of men and the number of women in prison? This is discrimination on a colossal scale – don’t say that men commit more crime, that is ‘hate crime’ and deserves dire punishment.

      • Part of the leftist deceit is that such statistics “prove” the disadvantaged because they always believe that creates the criminal – ignoring the vast numbers of disadavantaged people who are perfectly law abiding citizens.

        The left selectively bestow and withdraw freedom of moral choice as it suits their selective agenda. But since that deceit is fully bought into by this present and rotten “Conservative” government I cannot see how truth and objectivity can ever prevail.

    • It is indeed! Why is there no audit on the effect of these crimes upon innocent black families who have lost (mainly) sons due to the criminality of others? Why should the stabber/mugger/shooter get more sympathy than the victims, just based on race?

    • Exactly.
      Respectable black people regularly appear on phone ins stating that
      they want stop & search to protect their own children.
      Most youth street crime is black or asian.
      Most rapes are committed by men.
      It may be politically correct to deny the first statement, but act thus is as stupid
      as questioning women about a rape they may have committed.

  5. I agree Laura. Having given yet another gift to the cultural Marxists/identity politics movement I thing the only realistic response is to highlight what the data actually shows. For instance you are quite right to point out the poor outcomes for “black” pupils and overrepresentation in crime etc. is matched by being the most “broken” in terms of broken families, single parenting etc. Constantly pointing out the positive outcomes for Chinese, Sikh “Indian”, Jewish etc. pupils inevitably leads to a focus on their “culture” and for instance the low figures for divorce and single parenting. Of course a similar link is very evident in “poor white boys” in particular.
    Of course these “uncomfortable truths” will be skated over by the liberal elite, so its important to keep them in the public eye.
    In one sense the audits are an opportunity. For the politics of identity and envy is based on very flimsy “evidence” long represented as if its sound evidence based and authoritative. While as you point out the actual data frequently begs questions. Not least if Britain is so racist how is it many “races” do better on many indicators than the white population?
    Frankly if conservatives are going to counter this agenda they really are going to have to hunker down and be as assiduous and determined as their opponents, and repeat and repeat and repeat. Waiting for some magical reincarnation of Maggie or hoping Farrage will take on a wider agenda and moaning in the meantime lets your opponents walk all over you.
    Sir (as he should be) Nigel Farrage is actually a model of determination, knowing his stuff and beating his opposition at their own game.

  6. Not for the first time, or, I fear, the last, the Conservatives are parroting the Left in America. Obama made a song and dance about supposedly “racist” school exclusions in the US several years, as part of his general campaign of race-baiting. The reality is that suspensions and expulsions occur overwhelmingly in public sector schools in high crime areas and those high crime areas very frequently have local black majorities, e.g. parts of Detroit, Chicago, St Louis, Baltimore, among plenty of others.

    Obama’s approach did nothing to address the underlying problems, of course, but it was never meant to. If Obama had been serious about narrowing the racial divide, rather than widening it, he wouldn’t have offered inflammatory opinions about the Trayvon Martin case, or Ferguson, or the BLM movement, and he wouldn’t have continually rolled out the red carpet for Al Sharpton, notorious race agitator, at the White House.

    Yet Theresa May thinks his example is one to be followed.

    • The transatlantic leftist connection extends to the disruptive trolling of conservative sites which always begins here when America wakes up. Last night one of the threads was being inundated with disruptive code, coinciding with the bold text garbage of a troll who specialises in multiple identities (now “European Citizen”) and who plagued the Guido Fawkes site.

    • “If Obama had been serious about narrowing the racial divide, rather than widening it, he wouldn’t have offered inflammatory opinions about the Trayvon Martin case, or Ferguson, or the BLM movement, and he wouldn’t have continually rolled out the red carpet for Al Sharpton, notorious race agitator, at the White House.”

      Not even that. The key to closing the racial gap is simple: get a strong education and learn how to make your own money. Education and the Free Market are unbeatable, and transcend meaningless quotas and other such goop.

      • I quite agree, but that is easier to say than to do in certain neighbourhoods in the US and, I believe, the UK, where the quality of schooling is disastrous. Obama would never say or do anything to antagonize teaching unions, regardless of how abysmal their results were. There is a financial revolving-door between the Democrats and the unions in the States and that is far more important to the Democrats than quality of outcomes for schoolchildren.

        Union funding here entirely favours Labour, but the Conservatives are basically invertebrate on education. The last and only recent Education Secretary who showed any genuine concern for educational standards was Michael Gove. He was knifed in the back by Cameron, for failing to adhere to the “progressive” dogma.

        Since Gove, we have had Nicky Morgan (no relation) and Justine Greening, either of whom has even fewer braincells than she has principles.

  7. I’d like to remind you of MP Philip Davies’s story. He shot to
    prominence by saying that the evidence is that the criminal justice system
    treats women much more leniently than men, and followed this up by finding
    other areas of policy where this was true. However for many years Mr. Davies
    was content to believe the “experts” in their evidence to Committees etc. Until
    he asked the Houses of Parliament Library for a briefing (the “Library” is the information
    gathering resource for MPs) in which the data from the Gov. departments showed
    the complete reverse was the case. To his credit he started pointing this out
    and of course was “controversial” as a result (in fact this differential has
    been known and research from the late fifties). He went on to question some
    other assertions about gender and of course found the actual data contradicted
    the “received wisdom”.

    In another instance another MP asked for a Briefing on Domestic Abuse
    and again found the actual data was very different from the “experts”
    assertions. But again without that the MP was quite happy to go along with “received

    My point being that MPs should be helped, cajoled etc. into asking for
    the facts, even from the body that is required to supply them.

    The other “opportunity” is the importance of Freedom of Information
    requests. If the subject matter is controversial these are often avoided by the
    legally legitimate argument that the data would be too expensive to extract.
    Having completed such an audit; a request for a breakdown by key variables
    could not be resisted legally on the grounds of too much work. So do go ahead
    and produce a “hit list” and get people to demand the data.
    In fact please please do.

    • Davies speaks truth to (feminist) power so of course they try to marginalise him as an “extremist” which is the pejorative radical bigots use for people who don’t swallow their radical bigotry. Note that radicals themselves are never extremists. In the lexicon of the lefty infested public narrative radical is good, even though many of the ideas that the radicals force feed us are extreme in nature, if not insane by the measure of a once settled and civilised society.

  8. “how many children who are born into the married family end up … in jail”

    Peter Sutcliffe – born into a married family, devout Catholic
    Harold Shipman – born into a married family, devout Methodists
    Fred West – born into a married family
    Rose West – born into a married family
    Myra Hindley – born into a married family
    Levi Bellfield – born into a married family

      • Make of my post what you will. I was merely drawing to your attention that statistically a serial killer is most likely to be born into a married family (Ian Brady is the most prominent exception to the rule although at a few months old he was adopted by a married family).
        Overall trend or not, it simply serves to remind us that a married family is not a magical answer to a crime-free child.

        • Bik Byro wrote:

          ‘ … statistically a serial killer is most likely to be born into a married family … ‘

          Another interesting statistic is the number of serial killers who suffered serious emotional, psychological, physical and sexual abuse, sometimes prolonged abuse so severe that it amounted to torture, from mothers using them as a proxy victim for their fathers.

          • Rose West’s childhood is horrific and bizarre. Her parents actually split up when Rose was a teenager but by then the rot had already well and truly set in.

    • The people cited were born in 1946, 1946, 1941, 1953, 1942 and 1968 respectively. In 1960 only 5% of children were born to unmarried mothers. Hence, the age of the chosen people imposes a strong bias towards married parents. Rather pointedly you omitted Ian Bradey – whose mother was unmarried and whose father is unknown. Whilst the statistics are too small for any conclusion, I note that this implied 1:6 ratio exceeds the 1:20 married:unmarried ratio.

      • Rather pointedly you can’t even spell Ian Brady.
        Rather pointedly I covered Ian Brady in my reply to Morgan Courtenay above.
        Rather pointedly, Ian Brady was brought up by a married family.
        Rather pointedly, Britain’s most recent serial killer Stephen Port, born in 1975 was born into a married family. His parents are still together.

        • The situation has got so bad now, though, that children from stable families actually feel to be the odd ones out. One of my daughters wanted to have ‘family problems’ so that she could fit in with her classmates.

    • These people are extreme psychopaths rather than ill raised delinquents born
      into a life of petty crime & the odd act of violence.
      Persone born of married parents also include Hitler, Stalin, Trotsky, & Pol Pot.
      There is not a scintilla of doubt that persons raised in a secure home, de facto
      married if not legally married, are likely to be better citizens & lead happier lives than
      those raised in the self inflicted poverty of deliberate single motherhood.
      Post War there were plenty of single mothers, War Widows, they were respectable & respected & their children turned out much as other children from similar class backgrounds.

      • True. I was highlighting the other side of the coin – the other side which also holds millions of examples of people raised in single parent households who turned out to be pillars of society.

        I don’t think it’s the government’s job though to hold together failing marriages. It’s not what I vote them in to do. And since most right wing people understandably don’t want teachers interfering in teaching our kids how to handle relationships, that leaves educating our children about relationships to the parents – some will be good at this, others not.

        • I agree with your sentiments up to a point.
          The government should not prop up failing marriages, OK.
          But should it actually promote the reckless procreation of children to single mothers ?
          Two cases from my personal experience.
          Young married couple with a baby renting a couple of rooms & wish
          to rent a council house/flat. Told waiting list is 10 years.
          A couple of years on they split up after living with parents
          Same constituency. Backward girl pregnant at 17 by lout who laughs at
          her & the baby publicly.
          Gets accommodation in apartments rested for single mother.
          Pals up with man 30 years older, long term unemployed.
          Gets pregnant. Given nice three bedroom new council flat with riverside views.
          Until the nanny state moved in these matters were dealt with by the family
          & repeat extra marital pregnancy were rare compared with today.
          The town I referring to now has a youth crime rate comparable with

          • I remember when I was a junior school lad in the 1960s, my father putting down the newspaper with a sigh and telling my mother about the article he’d just read where a young couple had recently had a baby just in order to jump the council house waiting list. So it’s not a new phenomenon.

          • Not a new phenomenon, just a natural desire that all us humans
            have for self betterment.
            Other words for it include cheating & irresponsibility.
            The fact remains that the state should not actively encourage socially
            undesirable & ultimately dangerous behaviour.
            It nannies us about smoking & drinking & calls us racist if we attempt to
            protect our version of civilisation – in the latter case actually punishing us
            as well as using our money to pay for the hypocritical creeps at the
            BBC to condemn us.

      • I’m not denying that single parent families can compromise a child’s upbringing. Although I would argue it’s better to grow up in a single parent household rather than one where mum and dad are shouting and arguing all the time. I was showing the other (tongue-in-cheek) side of the coin which is that a married family is not a magic panacea for raising crime-free offspring either.

        • Statistically you are wrong. In the US where these sorts of stats can still be collected a child is between 6 and 20 times more likely to take drugs, have a child out of marriage or be imprisoned than a child raised by its bilological married parents

          You cannot suggest meaningful trends from self selected data as you just did. Anyone would think that you were a government statistician!

  9. It seems to me that – subconsciously – Mrs May is trying to atone for her “Nasty Party” comment of yore (and making a total shambles of it).
    Mrs May will never grasp that it isn’t “nasty” to be unsympathetic to people who foul up their lives due to ill-advised lifestyle choices – said folks then tend to want bail-outs from the state in one form or another.

  10. Miss

    I’d like to see an audit carried out on the outcomes for children in homosexual ‘marriages’. Studies on the other side of the Atlantic, indicate dysfuntionality.

    • You seem to be the only one banging on about homosexuals when the article is about another topic entirely. Do you ever have opinions an anything other than homosexual partnerships?

    • I think that any such audit should be carried out post puberty. Any problems arising from the ‘family ‘ circumstances of children growing up in such arrangements are likely to reveal themselves then.

  11. I snorted and burst out laughing when I saw the news on (yet another) race audit. Why? Not because I wish for racism to continue to plague parts of our society, but because May will avoid every REAL solution to combating discrimination. She doesn’t support the market, the true and irrefutable way of combating discrimination. She has dithered on re-introducing grammar schools. She has abandoned marriage and the family. Britons are losing their sense of national identity and civic values. So of course her race audit will turn up the same miserable results, and there will be many tongues a-wagging, and many fingers a-pointing and then they will go back to fumbling over Brexit.

    If Mrs May was serious about improving society, then I would like to see an audit over the effects of learning proper Maths, English and Science throughout the school system on your career and employment chances. An audit on the effects of these gelatinous “subjects” like “General Studies A Level” on the same career chances, if you please. An audit on the consequences of an education system where children are not indoctrinated with presumptuous, intrusive information about sex and drugs, whilst being discouraged from talking about faith, national identity and civic values. An audit on the consequences of lowering admissions standards to major positions (like… Parliament) for the sake of false “diversity”. An audit on whether MP’s pay reflects their worth. I could go on and on. May has no solutions for the race “divide”– an expression that keeps mediocre people without any academic/technical pedigree in employment. In the “race survey”, 71% of Chinese children are properly literate in English, compared to 54% of white English children. I wonder what the media has to say about that?

    • Apart from Grammar Schools, as a retired school teacher/FE lecturer I agree with every word.
      All schools should have a grammar school ethos & be streamed for every class ideally.
      Delinquents being given short shrift.

      • Delinquents are now all ‘victims’ and therefore attract huge amounts of money. It’s insane – nobody in their right mind pours money into the least productive part of a business.

        • It started in the 50s when delinquents came from “broken homes”.
          Today, coming from a “broken home” is encouraged by the state,
          indeed, rewarded.
          Result, more delinquency and of a type & scale unprecedented
          in the 20th century.

          • Exactly – see my reply to Bik below. One of my daughters actually wanted to have ‘family problems’ so that she could fit in with her classmates.

          • My daughter came home from school 15 years ago and asked if there was something wrong with her because she couldn’t remember when her parents last shouted at each other. Apparently it is quite normal for parents to shout rather than talk normally. I blame East Enders !!!!!

  12. An audit of the effect cultural marxism and post-modernism has had on society.
    A proper audit of whether immigration actually does help anyone but the immigrants themselves.
    An audit of whether diversity really is a strength.
    An audit on the effects of multiculturalism.
    An audit of whether women in the Police and armed services actually a benefit or hindrance.
    Trouble is I wouldn’t necessarily trust the results one way or the other.

    • Too right. You will never have an audit when you are cast-iron convinced that you already know the answer, and the remote possibility that you might somehow inexplicably be wrong, scares the crap out of you.

  13. Ah, Laura, I doubt you’re supposed to know that, unless Melanie Phillips is wrong, which is I suppose possible. She wrote the other day, “Nevertheless, I suspect such sexual attacks are in general on the increase, not least because of the breakdown of the traditional family. Before the British government decided to censor the statistics showing the relative rate of abuse by biological and non-biological family members.”

    • Melanie wrote a very good article on this. She has also discussed this subject before and openly wondered why Mrs May has never bothered to look into the importance of family. I suspect it is because Mrs May doesn’t have a vested interest in the future.

      • Indeed, of the six founding members of the European Union – France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg – five are led by childless prime ministers: joining Merkel, Gentiloni and Macron at the no-need-for-daycare Euro-summit are the Dutch PM Mark Rutte and the Luxemburger Xavier Bettel. Mark Rutte is single and childless. Xavier Bettel of Lux is married, but gay and, hélas, for the moment without progeny.

        As I wrote over a decade ago now, Europe is barren – and its leadership class reflects that. The key line from America Alone is: “The future belongs to those who show up.”


  14. The whole thing is nonsense. Any unfavourable findings of any un-PC audits would be hastily swept under the proverbial, even if they were allowed to be conducted in the first place. Most self-supporting, tax paying, family-centric, eat supper around the table people could point out the problems in under a minute. This is virtue signalling gone mad and the fact that the government is blind to the true causes of societal breakdown does not bode well for the future. The “bribing the electorate to vote for you since 1945” chickens have really come home to roost.

    • I know what you mean, but don’t like the phrase ‘virtue signalling’.

      Only because I think that very often what is being signalled is far from being ‘virtuous’.

  15. Not to mention that “extreme masculinity” is equated with being a sexual predator.

    How would Hollywood recognize extreme feminity?

    We’re hoping to read Nick Booth’s article (broken link) soon.

  16. Given that Mrs May clearly expected her audit to show unadulterated racial discrimination against non -white people, it must have been a sad blow to her control- freak, vindictive, self- righteous hopes to discover that the worst performing group of all in the educational system was working class white boys.

    How does this slot into her typically self- flagellating preconceptions, I wonder? Without blaming herself and her fellow liberal politicians for helping to bringing about the social disasters we see all around us, that is?

    White working class people are of course the very ones who gave us Brexit, largely because they are the ones who most especially have seen their ancient communities transformed out of all recognitionand and their employment chances undermined by mass immigration.

    What normal person wouldn’t be ‘racist’ when contemplating that ?

Comments are closed.