Probably more down to the party politics and how likeable that person is rather than their skin colour.
I doubt a person of Pakistani (muslim) would be tolerated but that is more to do with the fact a few want to murder us and we dont who is the good guy and who is the bad rather than their skin colour.
Not too sure where you are going with this question ?
It is a matter of the right person not having become apparent rather than the public not being ready to do it. Peoe said the same about women before Margaret Thatcher arrived on the scene. And some homosexuals hold cabinet positions and high office.
If a British Obama came to the forefront, and were clearly better than their rivals, then their colour wouldn't barthem. Though AOG would turn in his grave.
Well, unless anyone can come up with some credible non white candidates, your question is fairly pointless.
Just take a look at the 3 main political parties: do any of them have any prominent non whites in their ranks?
You need to have the ammo before you can fire the gun.
Couldn't give a hoot whether they were black, white, yellow, male, female, gay short, tall disabled. etc. etc. as long as they were good as their job and fair to all of us.
I agree with Nick ...oops Sorry meant Gromit....if the candidate had all the necessary political qualities and was an outstanding best of the bunch, then that candidate could make it into No.10 irrespective of skin colour
But in answer to the question - I don't think the majority of the voting public (under the age of say, 65) would have any issue with a black PM.
Elderly people however WOULD have an issue...because so many of them are very, very, very bigoted and wouldn't counternance a black PM under any circumstances.
Yep Ted was 'one of them' but did anyone really bother ?
SP, you are probably right about the over 65's and from experience I know the problem also exists in the under 65's particualrly in the working classes.
It will die out though, afterall not long ago mixed race marriages wre taboo, but now who really cares and why should they? Just takes a bit of time.
UK is a bit different to the UK. US has had a larger amoutn of ethnics (could be argued most of them of course) than the UK for a longer period of time.
Still comes down to attitude. Many ethncs need to loose the chip off their shoulder, that will speed up the integration and acceptance. Of course Noo Labours policy of multi culture has damaged race relations alot unfortunartley.
Agree with above comments; it's all down to personal experiences with different types of people.
If the only black person someone has seen is on a tv screen with a bone through their nose, or on the news stabbing someone, or on stage rapping in some unintelligible dialect; they are hardly likely to accept a black person as PM.
It's down to black professionals, neighbours, service personnel and work colleagues we come into contact with who share and project the qualities and characteristics that we all admire and aspire to.
As far as I know, yes - Edward Heath was a 'confirmed bachelor' (used to love that ephemism that the papers employed back in the 70s).
Not slating the over 65s...just pointing out that they are (very generally) bigoted. They grew up in a different world, so it's not exactly their fault.
youngmafbog - I'd suggest that integration and acceptance is well underway, evidenced by the number of mixed race partnerships you see.
Notice how many of our rising stars are bi-racial?
Back in the 70s, there were only two that I can remember - Charlie whatsisname (Northern comic) and Kenny Lynch.
The shoulder chips will probably decrease in size and number with the decrease in perceived racist attitudes.
I get the impression that across the Pond they have greater race issues than we have here. So if they can elect a 50% 'black' / 50% 'white' leader for their country I can't see any reason it couldn't happen here also.