A number of reasons why a British Obama is less likely, mentioned in that article:
Racism. Britain may be in some ways more integrated (no “black universities” here, for example), and the racism more subtle, but the glass ceilings are definitely there.
Smaller non-white population. Only 8% of the population.
Immigration much more recent. Only started in the late fifties.
Political system makes it harder for non-insiders to rise to premiership. The PM has to become leader of their party first, and that pretty much requires them to be a member of the cabinet or shadow cabinet, an established figure in the party. Somebody who’s only been an MP for one term would have almost no chance
And Britain is one of the most progressive countries in Europe in this regard. I think we’re still a couple of decades behind the US in terms of having non-white people in middle class authority positions. Until that happens it will remain harder for them to rise through party ranks. As the article says, I don’t think the voters have a problem with it, it’s the establishment.
I really think Sir James Douglas KCB, Governor of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, prior to Canada’s cofederation in 1867, deserves mention in this thread though he was appointed. Yet he was very popular.
He was a governor with black African ancestry while America held blacks in slavery.
Hola Gigobuster, es bueno estar de vuelta pero - te aclaro - ,en realidad nunca me fuí (ahora “lurkeo”)
Bolivia is a complicated case. You can´t think of Bolivia as a single political entity: the hills and the plains are really two different countries. It’s similar to what happens in several countries in Europe and it’s a concept that an american, or an argentinan, can’t understand. Luckily.