I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.
It is a dangerous precedent. If incompetence were a bar, who would be left from the current Cabinet? No one springs to mind...
I don't think that's true at all. Of course we can disagree, but personally I'd keep Liz Truss, Javid, Kwasi at least. Maybe Gove in some role - not sure what though.
Zahawi is another obvious omission.
No, I'd probably keep him.
He’s one I feel is overrated; yes, he’s combative in interview, but it generally doesn’t come across well to the listener. A bit of a bully, i fear.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What a random non sequitur. All woman and all men do not look the same time to me.
You're the one who is claiming it takes magic to stop discriminating against women. 🤔
If you can tell people apart, then treat them as individuals and don't discriminate against them. Job done.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What a random non sequitur. All woman and all men do not look the same time to me.
You're the one who is claiming it takes magic to stop discriminating against women. 🤔
If you can tell people apart, then treat them as individuals and don't discriminate against them. Job done.
The Labour membership is hundreds of thousands of people. Each with their own perceptions and biases. Me, or even anyone in the Labour NEC have close to zero ability to somehow change that. What they can change is the rules to give women a fairer chance, and make it more likely they select the right candidate. There would still be biases present, but they would be more evenly balanced than they are today.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
It wouldn't surprise me if in the next contest there's three women (maybe the three named) who lose to one man who's stood for it.
Oh, God. Burgon.
I wouldn't rate Burgon above demigod, personally
Judging by his Twitter feed Gary Neville has his eyes on Starmer’s job.
Maybe, after Burgon has one day in charge (he's the Allerdyce figure, no offence to either intended). Takes over fom uninspiring leader (Hodgson/Starmer). Highly rated, apparently loved by the British English public. Creates a good team. Comes close, even takes the lead, but loses in the end to a cynical but stronger opponent.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What a random non sequitur. All woman and all men do not look the same time to me.
You're the one who is claiming it takes magic to stop discriminating against women. 🤔
If you can tell people apart, then treat them as individuals and don't discriminate against them. Job done.
The Labour membership is hundreds of thousands of people. Each with their own perceptions and biases. Me, or even anyone in the Labour NEC have close to zero ability to somehow change that. What they can change is the rules to give women a fairer chance, and make it more likely they select the right candidate. There would still be biases present, but they would be more evenly balanced than they are today.
You might find doing some research about organisational culture, where it comes from, and how it can be changed, mind blowing reading.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.
What is wrong with positive discrimination then?
I'd be surprised that two people are "exactly" equal and question your scenario in the first place.
What tie breaking procedures would you have from two people of the same minority or majority grouping who are "exactly" equal under normal circumstances?
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
It wouldn't surprise me if in the next contest there's three women (maybe the three named) who lose to one man who's stood for it.
Oh, God. Burgon.
I wouldn't rate Burgon above demigod, personally
Judging by his Twitter feed Gary Neville has his eyes on Starmer’s job.
Maybe, after Burgon has one day in charge (he's the Allerdyce figure, no offence to either intended). Takes over fom uninspiring leader (Hodgson/Starmer). Highly rated, apparently loved by the British English public. Creates a good team. Comes close, even takes the lead, but loses in the end to a cynical but stronger opponent.
Yep, I can see that.
Analogy overload!
It’s like you’re down the golf club, and get handed all your clubs at once.
I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.
In most jobs, incompetence is absolute, whereas in politics it is merely relative.
Do you know anyone who has resigned because they thought they weren't up to the job outside of politics? I would suggest it is pretty rare in all walks of life.
Alan Johnson resigning as shadow chancellor perhaps also partly because he didn't feel he could do a great job?
Wow just googled "Angela Rayner Guardian" and can find no mention whatsoever on that paper's website of her apology. Someone pls point it out to me as I can't see it.
Facemasks really doing the job in Wales then with its highest infection rate in the UK. Almost conclude they are worse than useless in a real world setting
Copy/paste from a previous thread:
I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm." Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!" Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them. The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
While that's true the argument doesn't help us to work out how useful facemasks are, and therefore whether they should be the focus of public policy.
What we can say is that one of two things must be true. Either enforcing face mask usage at this stage of the pandemic results in more transmission, or there are other differences between Wales and England that have more of an effect on transmission than face mask usage.
I would suggest that public policy would be better directed towards those other differences, working out what they are and making the most of them to reduce transmission.
If those other differences are, for example, crowded housing then the prospects for meaningful change in the short term are nil. You decide first if you want to apply policy pressure on a perceived problem, then you decide what measures are available in the timescale. Lower density housing is probably desirable but a decades-long goal. If you want something on the days-scale, masks are part of the debate. Mask adherence lowers transmission (to about half?? check that, I might be misremembering).
Yes. The differences between Wales and England might be structural differences that we can't do anything about in the short term, or they might not be. How could we work out whether they are structural and essentially fixed?
We could look at the differences between England and Wales over time. If there were structural, fixed, differences then we would expect to see consistently higher transmission in Wales than in England. My impression is that the contrary is the case.
Consequently your argument that the other differences, which produce a higher transmission rate in Wales are fixed is rejected.
Input variables interact: structural issues may only manifest under certain social or environmental conditions. I'll give a toy example which is oversimplified, but illustrates what I mean. If you have a large commuting population, say Aberdare residents commuting to Cardiff offices. Suppose opening train windows reduces transmission dramatically. During periods of weather when having train windows open is comfortable or even desirable, you're knocking out a commuting pillar of the transmission. When the weather gets colder, the passengers close the windows and boom, transmissions spike.
This effect wouldn't show up at all if your work/residence/travel arrangements were different (e.g. where I live there are no trains at all, in other parts of the country commuting by bike is easier - I don't recommend cycling from Cardiff to Aberdare).
Structural factors are not always active. And if you think about it, this is the point of masks. They interrupt the transmission that comes from people crowding into the same bus/train/shop/pub etc. If everyone wfh and had everything delivered and didn't mix in any way, masks would be pretty pointless. That structure of society isn't realistic or desirable, so masks have a realistic role if we want to take advantage of them.
I'd suggest that improving ventilation is one of those things that isn't structural that we might want to concentrate public policy onto rather than face masks.
It also seems unlikely that there will be significantly stronger effects from inadequate ventilation or commuting in Wales than in England.
What this discussion tells me is that we do not know why there is higher transmission in Wales, and I think we ought to find that out before mandating face masks that we know are not the most important factor at play.
We're no longer in the emergency phase of the pandemic where we simply have to do anything and everything in the hope that something works. We've had nearly two years to gather and analyse evidence and we have the advantage from vaccines, so we can act more slowly on the basis of good evidence.
No, you missed the whole point, sorry. The issue in my example (and please remember it's a toy example not a serious attempt at explaining the transmission differences) isn't ventilation per se. It's the fact that structural effects may be masked (har har) by environmental ones part of the time. To put it another way, the way that Welsh people live may, in bulk, be different to the way people in England live. And the way those differences respond to environmental changes (e.g. weather) will cause spikes and troughs at different times, even if the weather in England and Wales is identical (which, again, it isn't).
The headline is that there are MANY independent variables and ONE dependent variable. Trying to explain the dependent variable with reference to a SINGLE independent variable leads to trouble. It's like trying to explain that being poorly educated makes you a Conservative voter. Well, there might be an education factor in there, but the correlation is confounded by a hugely overbearing age factor, along with the fact that many more people go to university these days. It's age driving it. And there's even a chance that age is masking the fact that higher education makes you MORE Conservative (I'm not saying it does, but it's possible).
In short, correlation doesn't imply causation.
Yes, sure, but you don't know what these factors are, only that they're stronger than the effect from face masks.
So they might be things we can influence that will have a greater effect than face masks - and importantly they will help people in Wales who are already being told to use face masks, so can't use that intervention to reduce their higher transmission rate.
You can't just insist that every effect that results in Wales having greater transmission than England is something we can't do anything about without evidence.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What a random non sequitur. All woman and all men do not look the same time to me.
Shh. You’re interrupting my lunch setting me worrying about what a non-random non sequitur would look like.
Don't think Rachel Reeves trounced Boris at PMQ's on Wednesday as Labour were represented by Ed Milliband. He shouted a lot but really just reminded us why Cameron beat him in 2015. Reeves gave a competent response to the budget but anyone could have done better than Annaliese Dodds' lamentable effort last year. Reeves has the handicap of having a terrible voice.
Boris Johnson has a terrible voice but it doesn't seem to have hindered his rise to the top.
Lizzie the Lizard has had 14 PMs now. There would be a pleasing symmetry if her 15th and final PM was the son of Punjabi immigrants, seeing as she was the last Empress of India.
Next Labour leader is a bit of a side show to this I expect.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What a random non sequitur. All woman and all men do not look the same time to me.
You're the one who is claiming it takes magic to stop discriminating against women. 🤔
If you can tell people apart, then treat them as individuals and don't discriminate against them. Job done.
The Labour membership is hundreds of thousands of people. Each with their own perceptions and biases. Me, or even anyone in the Labour NEC have close to zero ability to somehow change that. What they can change is the rules to give women a fairer chance, and make it more likely they select the right candidate. There would still be biases present, but they would be more evenly balanced than they are today.
You might find doing some research about organisational culture, where it comes from, and how it can be changed, mind blowing reading.
But it is not just internal Labour party organisation that drives this, it is what we see on TV, both fact and fiction, what we have learnt from history, parental roles growing up etc. People think tall Oxbridge men are a good fit for PM because those are the images we have seen and subconsciously associated with the role.
Wow just googled "Angela Rayner Guardian" and can find no mention whatsoever on that paper's website of her apology. Someone pls point it out to me as I can't see it.
Oh, and on education, we have the recent YouGov polling that looks at the effect of education stratified by age, so we know there is an education effect independent of age - which is precisely my point. We can look at data to untangle the effects, so we should be able to work out what is reducing transmission in England compared to Wales and use that to reduce transmission in Wales.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.
What is wrong with positive discrimination then?
I'd be surprised that two people are "exactly" equal and question your scenario in the first place.
What tie breaking procedures would you have from two people of the same minority or majority grouping who are "exactly" equal under normal circumstances?
My example my rules. Exactly the same. Flip a coin.
This organisation has never had a minority executive. Same candidates. You would not think that pour encourager les autres and to take positive action to address that, they should willingly and consciously choose a minority candidate.
Sink or swim for you?
Thing is, the non-minority population has hundreds of years of establishment over the minority population and no doubt in due course, a few years or decades, it will resolve itself. But I think it legitimate to think that's not good enough.
Yes, at Tory and Green expense. Within a baw hair of displacing the SCUP as No. 2, too.
I thought the term was 'SCUM'? Or am I behind the times? Re Topping's comments, I get all my news from the guardian, so maybe I've missed something....
Wow just googled "Angela Rayner Guardian" and can find no mention whatsoever on that paper's website of her apology. Someone pls point it out to me as I can't see it.
Wow just googled "Angela Rayner Guardian" and can find no mention whatsoever on that paper's website of her apology. Someone pls point it out to me as I can't see it.
I've just been reading The Guardian, hard copy, over lunch. It's on the front page. Will that do?
I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.
In most jobs, incompetence is absolute, whereas in politics it is merely relative.
Do you know anyone who has resigned because they thought they weren't up to the job outside of politics? I would suggest it is pretty rare in all walks of life.
Alan Johnson resigning as shadow chancellor perhaps also partly because he didn't feel he could do a great job?
The clever men know the thing to do is to move on before you get found out.
I knew Alan personally; he did retain a remarkable humility despite his career taking off so dramatically. I can make a credible case for being personally responsible for his entering parliament in the first place, but it would be too much typing.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
It wouldn't surprise me if in the next contest there's three women (maybe the three named) who lose to one man who's stood for it.
Oh, God. Burgon.
I wouldn't rate Burgon above demigod, personally
Judging by his Twitter feed Gary Neville has his eyes on Starmer’s job.
Maybe, after Burgon has one day in charge (he's the Allerdyce figure, no offence to either intended). Takes over fom uninspiring leader (Hodgson/Starmer). Highly rated, apparently loved by the British English public. Creates a good team. Comes close, even takes the lead, but loses in the end to a cynical but stronger opponent.
Yep, I can see that.
Analogy overload!
Damn! Have I reached my quota? Does that mean a spell at Con Home? That would be like...
Wow just googled "Angela Rayner Guardian" and can find no mention whatsoever on that paper's website of her apology. Someone pls point it out to me as I can't see it.
Wow just googled "Angela Rayner Guardian" and can find no mention whatsoever on that paper's website of her apology. Someone pls point it out to me as I can't see it.
Yes, at Tory and Green expense. Within a baw hair of displacing the SCUP as No. 2, too.
I thought the term was 'SCUM'? Or am I behind the times? Re Topping's comments, I get all my news from the guardian, so maybe I've missed something....
No; just the abbreviation for Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party! (used for clarity, to avoid any UK-wide meaning, but it evidently didn't completely work ...)
If Labour can come up with 3-4 reasonably credible female candidates for their next leader, it is possible that the MPs could collectively agree to pressure all prospective male candidates to simply not stand. Thus getting round the membership's seeming reluctance to pick a woman by just not allowing them not to.
I'm as dogmatically opposed to all-female shortlists as the next non-bigot, but in this case it might just about look convincing, since the two currently leading male candidates aren't even eligible.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.
What is wrong with positive discrimination then?
I'd be surprised that two people are "exactly" equal and question your scenario in the first place.
What tie breaking procedures would you have from two people of the same minority or majority grouping who are "exactly" equal under normal circumstances?
My example my rules. Exactly the same. Flip a coin.
This organisation has never had a minority executive. Same candidates. You would not think that pour encourager les autres and to take positive action to address that, they should willingly and consciously choose a minority candidate.
Sink or swim for you?
Thing is, the non-minority population has hundreds of years of establishment over the minority population and no doubt in due course, a few years or decades, it will resolve itself. But I think it legitimate to think that's not good enough.
If its a coin toss then both candidates are the best person for the job. No qualms with that being a tie-breaker, but I don't accept the scenario.
But to deliberately pick a lesser candidate because of discrimination?
Wow just googled "Angela Rayner Guardian" and can find no mention whatsoever on that paper's website of her apology. Someone pls point it out to me as I can't see it.
Don't think Rachel Reeves trounced Boris at PMQ's on Wednesday as Labour were represented by Ed Milliband. He shouted a lot but really just reminded us why Cameron beat him in 2015. Reeves gave a competent response to the budget but anyone could have done better than Annaliese Dodds' lamentable effort last year. Reeves has the handicap of having a terrible voice.
Boris Johnson has a terrible voice but it doesn't seem to have hindered his rise to the top.
As far as being a national leader is concerned, pretty much everything about Johnson is terrible. But we Brits do seem to enjoy it when Eddie the Eagle makes a good jump.
Don't think Rachel Reeves trounced Boris at PMQ's on Wednesday as Labour were represented by Ed Milliband. He shouted a lot but really just reminded us why Cameron beat him in 2015. Reeves gave a competent response to the budget but anyone could have done better than Annaliese Dodds' lamentable effort last year. Reeves has the handicap of having a terrible voice.
Boris Johnson has a terrible voice but it doesn't seem to have hindered his rise to the top.
As far as being a national leader is concerned, pretty much everything about Johnson is terrible. But we Brits do seem to enjoy it when Eddie the Eagle makes a good jump.
Yes, at Tory and Green expense. Within a baw hair of displacing the SCUP as No. 2, too.
I thought the term was 'SCUM'? Or am I behind the times? Re Topping's comments, I get all my news from the guardian, so maybe I've missed something....
No; just the abbreviation for Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party! (used for clarity, to avoid any UK-wide meaning, but it evidently didn't completely work ...)
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.
What is wrong with positive discrimination then?
I'd be surprised that two people are "exactly" equal and question your scenario in the first place.
What tie breaking procedures would you have from two people of the same minority or majority grouping who are "exactly" equal under normal circumstances?
My example my rules. Exactly the same. Flip a coin.
This organisation has never had a minority executive. Same candidates. You would not think that pour encourager les autres and to take positive action to address that, they should willingly and consciously choose a minority candidate.
Sink or swim for you?
Thing is, the non-minority population has hundreds of years of establishment over the minority population and no doubt in due course, a few years or decades, it will resolve itself. But I think it legitimate to think that's not good enough.
If its a coin toss then both candidates are the best person for the job. No qualms with that being a tie-breaker, but I don't accept the scenario.
But to deliberately pick a lesser candidate because of discrimination?
Delighted that you are in favour of positive discrimination. So what was all that nonsense before?
And no one is picking the "lesser candidate". There have been years of discrimination when in all likelihood the lesser candidate has been chosen because they were minorities. And it still happens. And while I appreciate that you have been a leading light in campaigning against this injustice sadly it has to date not been hugely effective.
To be honest, an all woman shortlist might be the only way Labour elects a female leader. And even then I'm not convinced that they wouldn't mess it up!
Would physically-male-candidates-who-self-identify-as-women* be allowed to stand
* genuine question - am so confused by the right words now… there must be a snappier way of describing someone like that?
Don't think Rachel Reeves trounced Boris at PMQ's on Wednesday as Labour were represented by Ed Milliband. He shouted a lot but really just reminded us why Cameron beat him in 2015. Reeves gave a competent response to the budget but anyone could have done better than Annaliese Dodds' lamentable effort last year. Reeves has the handicap of having a terrible voice.
Boris Johnson has a terrible voice but it doesn't seem to have hindered his rise to the top.
As far as being a national leader is concerned, pretty much everything about Johnson is terrible. But we Brits do seem to enjoy it when Eddie the Eagle makes a good jump.
That's our fault for putting up Corbyn.
For sure. But whose fault is it that neither Andy, Yvette or Liz managed to inspire?
Labour’s real, big, humongous fault is to have ducked out of its promise to introduce a fairer voting system.
For which our house communist should forever be ashamed.
If Labour can come up with 3-4 reasonably credible female candidates for their next leader, it is possible that the MPs could collectively agree to pressure all prospective male candidates to simply not stand. Thus getting round the membership's seeming reluctance to pick a woman by just not allowing them not to.
I'm as dogmatically opposed to all-female shortlists as the next non-bigot, but in this case it might just about look convincing, since the two currently leading male candidates aren't even eligible.
They don't need to pressure them not to stand, they just need to convince enough of their fellow MPs to choose to nominate one of the women instead.
Don't think Rachel Reeves trounced Boris at PMQ's on Wednesday as Labour were represented by Ed Milliband. He shouted a lot but really just reminded us why Cameron beat him in 2015. Reeves gave a competent response to the budget but anyone could have done better than Annaliese Dodds' lamentable effort last year. Reeves has the handicap of having a terrible voice.
Boris Johnson has a terrible voice but it doesn't seem to have hindered his rise to the top.
As far as being a national leader is concerned, pretty much everything about Johnson is terrible. But we Brits do seem to enjoy it when Eddie the Eagle makes a good jump.
Yes, at Tory and Green expense. Within a baw hair of displacing the SCUP as No. 2, too.
I thought the term was 'SCUM'? Or am I behind the times? Re Topping's comments, I get all my news from the guardian, so maybe I've missed something....
No; just the abbreviation for Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party! (used for clarity, to avoid any UK-wide meaning, but it evidently didn't completely work ...)
Just as long as you don't tag them with the vile, abusive term Tory.
Lizzie the Lizard has had 14 PMs now. There would be a pleasing symmetry if her 15th and final PM was the son of Punjabi immigrants, seeing as she was the last Empress of India.
Next Labour leader is a bit of a side show to this I expect.
She was never Empress, or even Queen, of India, the country became a republic in 1950
Don't think Rachel Reeves trounced Boris at PMQ's on Wednesday as Labour were represented by Ed Milliband. He shouted a lot but really just reminded us why Cameron beat him in 2015. Reeves gave a competent response to the budget but anyone could have done better than Annaliese Dodds' lamentable effort last year. Reeves has the handicap of having a terrible voice.
Boris Johnson has a terrible voice but it doesn't seem to have hindered his rise to the top.
As far as being a national leader is concerned, pretty much everything about Johnson is terrible. But we Brits do seem to enjoy it when Eddie the Eagle makes a good jump.
That's our fault for putting up Corbyn.
Don’t put up Corbyn again!
We're putting up Starmer in 2024 and he is the best Labour could put up right now
Don't think Rachel Reeves trounced Boris at PMQ's on Wednesday as Labour were represented by Ed Milliband. He shouted a lot but really just reminded us why Cameron beat him in 2015. Reeves gave a competent response to the budget but anyone could have done better than Annaliese Dodds' lamentable effort last year. Reeves has the handicap of having a terrible voice.
Boris Johnson has a terrible voice but it doesn't seem to have hindered his rise to the top.
As far as being a national leader is concerned, pretty much everything about Johnson is terrible. But we Brits do seem to enjoy it when Eddie the Eagle makes a good jump.
That's our fault for putting up Corbyn.
Don’t put up Corbyn again!
We're putting up Starmer in 2024 and he is the best Labour could put up right now
I rather fear he will turn out to be the best Labour could have put up a couple of years back.
Don't think Rachel Reeves trounced Boris at PMQ's on Wednesday as Labour were represented by Ed Milliband. He shouted a lot but really just reminded us why Cameron beat him in 2015. Reeves gave a competent response to the budget but anyone could have done better than Annaliese Dodds' lamentable effort last year. Reeves has the handicap of having a terrible voice.
Boris Johnson has a terrible voice but it doesn't seem to have hindered his rise to the top.
As far as being a national leader is concerned, pretty much everything about Johnson is terrible. But we Brits do seem to enjoy it when Eddie the Eagle makes a good jump.
That's our fault for putting up Corbyn.
Again, excuse my persistence, but you still haven’t revealed which bookie took your £3500 bet.
As someone who has bet on politics for many years, staking - at times - five figure sums, I’m really interested to know.
Lizzie the Lizard has had 14 PMs now. There would be a pleasing symmetry if her 15th and final PM was the son of Punjabi immigrants, seeing as she was the last Empress of India.
Next Labour leader is a bit of a side show to this I expect.
She was never Empress, or even Queen, of India, the country became a republic in 1950
Indeed, George VIth was the last British monarch of India not the Queen.
@TOPPING - The Guardian have not covered themselves in glory with their reporting of the Rayner statement.
Was my thinking but the Graun is the Graun. Plenty of columnists were quick to ask what all the fuss was about when she made her first statement with wry letters on the subject in the letters page also.
Ang would eat those 3 alive. Ang is tough, she has come from nowhere to the top of the party. Nandy completely missed her opening in the last leadership campaign, Reeves was awful in the Miliband years, a real drag and the Sunderland girl hasn't got the background story of Angela Rayner. Ang is still the no1 contender and crucially no Social Democrat.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
Ang would eat those 3 alive. Ang is tough, she has come from nowhere to the top of the party. Nandy completely missed her opening in the last leadership campaign, Reeves was awful in the Miliband years, a real drag and the Sunderland girl hasn't got the background story of Angela Rayner. Ang is still the no1 contender and crucially no Social Democrat.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
Excellent. Keep at it for goodness sake.
= Lab out of power for the foreseeable future.
Talk like that and you'll send me back voting for the Cons.
Just to confirm, did Labour take back a seat formerly held by UKIP
They did, both Labour and Conservative vote shares went up ~20 percentage points.
UKIP voters returning to Labour, the not Corbyn effect
Not so fast. This was a 3 seat ward. Lab got top two comfortably last time. The Kipper beat the third Lab candidate by 1 vote last time. There was no UKIP, nor LD this time. And quite a fall in the Green vote too. So. Not so simple as that. Nevertheless was a decent hold in an area Lab have been dire of late. As always with 8 votes across the country, there were good and poor performances for all 4 main Parties to cherry pick. There has been no real sign of a Labour surge in Council by-elections over the past few months taken in the round.
I can only remember one politician who resigned because they admitted they weren't up to the job. From memory it was a Labour spokeswoman in the 2000s. Virtually all try to brazen it out in the hope that things will get better.
Not just a spokeswoman: she was the Secretary of State for Education (or whatever the department was called at the time).
Wow just googled "Angela Rayner Guardian" and can find no mention whatsoever on that paper's website of her apology. Someone pls point it out to me as I can't see it.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
Lizzie the Lizard has had 14 PMs now. There would be a pleasing symmetry if her 15th and final PM was the son of Punjabi immigrants, seeing as she was the last Empress of India.
Next Labour leader is a bit of a side show to this I expect.
She was never Empress, or even Queen, of India, the country became a republic in 1950
To be honest, an all woman shortlist might be the only way Labour elects a female leader. And even then I'm not convinced that they wouldn't mess it up!
Would physically-male-candidates-who-self-identify-as-women* be allowed to stand
* genuine question - am so confused by the right words now… there must be a snappier way of describing someone like that?
I believe that there was some controversy over a London Labour woman's officer being a trans woman, so I presume on that basis that would be allowed.
My knowledge of Labour MPs is less encyclopedic than others, but I don't think there are any trans Labour MPs.
Wow just googled "Angela Rayner Guardian" and can find no mention whatsoever on that paper's website of her apology. Someone pls point it out to me as I can't see it.
Ah. You will forgive me if the headline fooled me, what with it focusing on her as victim and not mentioning the apology at all.
Which also begs the question of whether she would she have apologised if she and her family hadn't received "terrifying and explicit" abuse?
Sometimes it's worth reading beyond the headlines, just sayin.
Not how the world works, sadly. I googled Angela Rayner Guardian to see how they would treat the apology and the headline to the piece within which it was mentioned told me all I need to know.
Ang would eat those 3 alive. Ang is tough, she has come from nowhere to the top of the party. Nandy completely missed her opening in the last leadership campaign, Reeves was awful in the Miliband years, a real drag and the Sunderland girl hasn't got the background story of Angela Rayner. Ang is still the no1 contender and crucially no Social Democrat.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
Excellent. Keep at it for goodness sake.
= Lab out of power for the foreseeable future.
Talk like that and you'll send me back voting for the Cons.
Rayners statement yesterday was class and reflected well on her.
Still can’t see her, limped Phillips, as PM material.
Phillipson is really smart. People shouldn’t underrate her.
Her seat will be safer next time especially with her higher profile. I’m a fan. We don’t have many good labour MPs in the North East but she is one.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
To be honest, an all woman shortlist might be the only way Labour elects a female leader. And even then I'm not convinced that they wouldn't mess it up!
Would physically-male-candidates-who-self-identify-as-women* be allowed to stand
* genuine question - am so confused by the right words now… there must be a snappier way of describing someone like that?
Transwomen.
Sorry to hear about the confusion over words. I'm sure it's nothing. Did you get your 8 hours last night?
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
Ang would eat those 3 alive. Ang is tough, she has come from nowhere to the top of the party. Nandy completely missed her opening in the last leadership campaign, Reeves was awful in the Miliband years, a real drag and the Sunderland girl hasn't got the background story of Angela Rayner. Ang is still the no1 contender and crucially no Social Democrat.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
Excellent. Keep at it for goodness sake.
= Lab out of power for the foreseeable future.
Talk like that and you'll send me back voting for the Cons.
Labour isn't going to win being Social Democrats, unless the economy totally tanks and even then Bunter might lie his way through.
Labour need a leader in touch with the working person. Ideally with some background in small business, where they could really make hay.
As we are now nobody comes to mind. Rayner is probably the best of a bad bunch.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
The rest is fluff.
No I've not. You put forward a stupid scenario I said I didn't accept.
Since I don't accept coin toss as a solution which was your forced choice alternative, I don't accept that bollocks either.
Lizzie the Lizard has had 14 PMs now. There would be a pleasing symmetry if her 15th and final PM was the son of Punjabi immigrants, seeing as she was the last Empress of India.
Next Labour leader is a bit of a side show to this I expect.
She was never Empress, or even Queen, of India, the country became a republic in 1950
Bah, facts - just mere facts!
Although she was Queen of Pakistan until 1956. So maybe Moonshine's original point stands, as part of the Punjab is in Pakistan.
To be honest, an all woman shortlist might be the only way Labour elects a female leader. And even then I'm not convinced that they wouldn't mess it up!
Would physically-male-candidates-who-self-identify-as-women* be allowed to stand
* genuine question - am so confused by the right words now… there must be a snappier way of describing someone like that?
Transwomen.
Sorry to hear about the confusion over words. I'm sure it's nothing. Did you get your 8 hours last night?
Dead wrong, it is trans women. Your error reveals a whole world of unconscious wrong think, as if you thought these people were something other than women.
Ang would eat those 3 alive. Ang is tough, she has come from nowhere to the top of the party. Nandy completely missed her opening in the last leadership campaign, Reeves was awful in the Miliband years, a real drag and the Sunderland girl hasn't got the background story of Angela Rayner. Ang is still the no1 contender and crucially no Social Democrat.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
Excellent. Keep at it for goodness sake.
= Lab out of power for the foreseeable future.
Talk like that and you'll send me back voting for the Cons.
Labour isn't going to win being Social Democrats, unless the economy totally tanks and even then Bunter might lie his way through.
Labour need a leader in touch with the working person. Ideally with some background in small business, where they could really make hay.
As we are now nobody comes to mind. Rayner is probably the best of a bad bunch.
What about Jess Phillips. It is quite clear that we Brits have come to like someone with character and she fits that bill.
I appreciate that this falls into the "Lab leaders Tory voters like and would never vote for". Although my vote is up for grabs, that said.
Ang would eat those 3 alive. Ang is tough, she has come from nowhere to the top of the party. Nandy completely missed her opening in the last leadership campaign, Reeves was awful in the Miliband years, a real drag and the Sunderland girl hasn't got the background story of Angela Rayner. Ang is still the no1 contender and crucially no Social Democrat.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
Excellent. Keep at it for goodness sake.
= Lab out of power for the foreseeable future.
Talk like that and you'll send me back voting for the Cons.
Rayners statement yesterday was class and reflected well on her.
Still can’t see her, limped Phillips, as PM material.
Phillipson is really smart. People shouldn’t underrate her.
Her seat will be safer next time especially with her higher profile. I’m a fan. We don’t have many good labour MPs in the North East but she is one.
Phillipson is another humanities graduate, with a Social Democrat agenda. They are 10 a penny in Labour now, not seen anything politically smart from her so far. She was fortunate to hold her seat last time, when it was safe.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
The rest is fluff.
No I've not. You put forward a stupid scenario I said I didn't accept.
Since I don't accept coin toss as a solution which was your forced choice alternative, I don't accept that bollocks either.
You are not allowed to not accept it because I'm guessing that for years and years not only have candidates been equal but, whisper it, minority candidates have been better but have been passed over because they have been minorities. There has been discrimination for years and years and the better candidate has time and again been looked over in favour of someone not from a minority background.
And now you are on your high horse bleating about how everyone should be treated equally.
Ang would eat those 3 alive. Ang is tough, she has come from nowhere to the top of the party. Nandy completely missed her opening in the last leadership campaign, Reeves was awful in the Miliband years, a real drag and the Sunderland girl hasn't got the background story of Angela Rayner. Ang is still the no1 contender and crucially no Social Democrat.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
Excellent. Keep at it for goodness sake.
= Lab out of power for the foreseeable future.
Talk like that and you'll send me back voting for the Cons.
Labour isn't going to win being Social Democrats, unless the economy totally tanks and even then Bunter might lie his way through.
Labour need a leader in touch with the working person. Ideally with some background in small business, where they could really make hay.
As we are now nobody comes to mind. Rayner is probably the best of a bad bunch.
What about Jess Phillips. It is quite clear that we Brits have come to like someone with character and she fits that bill.
I appreciate that this falls into the "Lab leaders Tory voters like and would never vote for". Although my vote is up for grabs, that said.
I like Jess and she did really well in the last election, when very few Labour candidates did. She is in tune with her people for sure but Ang has a bigger profile in the party and nationally.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
The rest is fluff.
No I've not. You put forward a stupid scenario I said I didn't accept.
Since I don't accept coin toss as a solution which was your forced choice alternative, I don't accept that bollocks either.
You are not allowed to not accept it because I'm guessing that for years and years not only have candidates been equal but, whisper it, minority candidates have been better but have been passed over because they have been minorities. There has been discrimination for years and years and the better candidate has time and again been looked over in favour of someone not from a minority background.
And now you are on your high horse bleating about how everyone should be treated equally.
I've always been in favour of treating everyone equally. Failing to do so is bad for minorities.
The Party of All Women Shortlists and discrimination has never had a female leader. The Party of treating everyone as an individual not a group has had two, and has the most ethnically diverse Cabinet ever.
Ang would eat those 3 alive. Ang is tough, she has come from nowhere to the top of the party. Nandy completely missed her opening in the last leadership campaign, Reeves was awful in the Miliband years, a real drag and the Sunderland girl hasn't got the background story of Angela Rayner. Ang is still the no1 contender and crucially no Social Democrat.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
Excellent. Keep at it for goodness sake.
= Lab out of power for the foreseeable future.
Talk like that and you'll send me back voting for the Cons.
Rayners statement yesterday was class and reflected well on her.
Still can’t see her, limped Phillips, as PM material.
Phillipson is really smart. People shouldn’t underrate her.
Her seat will be safer next time especially with her higher profile. I’m a fan. We don’t have many good labour MPs in the North East but she is one.
Phillipson is another humanities graduate, with a Social Democrat agenda. They are 10 a penny in Labour now, not seen anything politically smart from her so far. She was fortunate to hold her seat last time, when it was safe.
She may be another humanities graduate, and I agree, they are dime a dozen,
But she does stand out. She’s a good communicator, never flustered, and always seems to perform well. She held her seat with a decent margin last time out and she did hold her seat when others struggled.
I am not criticising batch cooking, it is a great idea that works for many. Can the people who say all ready meals are bad explain what is bad about the dishes I have linked to? Open to persuasion here but simply proclaiming something does not make it true.
To me they look fine, especially as a base for 2 meals with some fresh ingredients and a pork chop.
Look a little pricey, for what they are, though.
Adding half of a corn on the cob from the freezer would enhance nicely.
Thanks. On the price depends how you look at it.
£3.50, little planning and no cooking time vs say £1 for ingredients plus ensuring have a constant wide variety of fresh ingredients plus 10-30 mins per meal.
For me, that amount of extra cash is irrelevant vs the time. For others it will be different.
Adding fresh bits (or frozen fresh bits) is quite quick.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
The rest is fluff.
No I've not. You put forward a stupid scenario I said I didn't accept.
Since I don't accept coin toss as a solution which was your forced choice alternative, I don't accept that bollocks either.
You pretence at being socially "woke" is laid bare as pure bluff by your refusal to accept that corrective action is needed, not just in politics, but also across the work place to ensure that positions of responsibility are more reflective of the world at large. That you are prepared to voice such vociferous opposition to this demonstrates you are just another right wing reactionary and not "woke" in any way shape or form.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
1. There probably isn't though, things being what they are, so this isn't a bad way to go. 2. If there's a strong female candidate for Labour leader she IS the right person for the job. This is the point. Has to be very very good though. No tokenism. Too important for that. 3. Yep, it's about getting the best person for the job. Exactly so. And in professions dominated by 'good chaps' and 'networks' we're a million miles from that, therefore disruption is needed. It might hurt for a while but you know what they say, no pain no gain.
Ang would eat those 3 alive. Ang is tough, she has come from nowhere to the top of the party. Nandy completely missed her opening in the last leadership campaign, Reeves was awful in the Miliband years, a real drag and the Sunderland girl hasn't got the background story of Angela Rayner. Ang is still the no1 contender and crucially no Social Democrat.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
Excellent. Keep at it for goodness sake.
= Lab out of power for the foreseeable future.
Talk like that and you'll send me back voting for the Cons.
Labour isn't going to win being Social Democrats, unless the economy totally tanks and even then Bunter might lie his way through.
Labour need a leader in touch with the working person. Ideally with some background in small business, where they could really make hay.
As we are now nobody comes to mind. Rayner is probably the best of a bad bunch.
She is a walking disaster area. She would be a bigger turn off to the floating voter than Jeremy Corbyn
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
The rest is fluff.
No I've not. You put forward a stupid scenario I said I didn't accept.
Since I don't accept coin toss as a solution which was your forced choice alternative, I don't accept that bollocks either.
You are not allowed to not accept it because I'm guessing that for years and years not only have candidates been equal but, whisper it, minority candidates have been better but have been passed over because they have been minorities. There has been discrimination for years and years and the better candidate has time and again been looked over in favour of someone not from a minority background.
And now you are on your high horse bleating about how everyone should be treated equally.
I've always been in favour of treating everyone equally. Failing to do so is bad for minorities.
The Party of All Women Shortlists and discrimination has never had a female leader. The Party of treating everyone as an individual not a group has had two, and has the most ethnically diverse Cabinet ever.
You may be in favour of treating everyone equally and you've probably got a live chance of winning Miss World with such an attitude.
But the facts are that for decades there has been discrimination against minorities so it's a bit rich (me being polite) for you to be the champion of fair selection processes now.
And as for your other point - what is it exactly? The party of All Women Shortlists has more female MPs than The Party of Treating Everyone as an Individual 52% vs 24%. You're a numbers guy - are you saying that it is likely that in three quarters of selection processes the men were better than the women for the Conservatives?
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
The rest is fluff.
No I've not. You put forward a stupid scenario I said I didn't accept.
Since I don't accept coin toss as a solution which was your forced choice alternative, I don't accept that bollocks either.
You pretence at being socially "woke" is laid bare as pure bluff by your refusal to accept that corrective action is needed, not just in politics, but also across the work place to ensure that positions of responsibility are more reflective of the world at large. That you are prepared to voice such vociferous opposition to this demonstrates you are just another right wing reactionary and not "woke" in any way shape or form.
I advocate for corrective action.
I don't agree with blatant discrimination as that corrective action.
Ang would eat those 3 alive. Ang is tough, she has come from nowhere to the top of the party. Nandy completely missed her opening in the last leadership campaign, Reeves was awful in the Miliband years, a real drag and the Sunderland girl hasn't got the background story of Angela Rayner. Ang is still the no1 contender and crucially no Social Democrat.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
Excellent. Keep at it for goodness sake.
= Lab out of power for the foreseeable future.
Talk like that and you'll send me back voting for the Cons.
Labour isn't going to win being Social Democrats, unless the economy totally tanks and even then Bunter might lie his way through.
Labour need a leader in touch with the working person. Ideally with some background in small business, where they could really make hay.
As we are now nobody comes to mind. Rayner is probably the best of a bad bunch.
What about Jess Phillips. It is quite clear that we Brits have come to like someone with character and she fits that bill.
I appreciate that this falls into the "Lab leaders Tory voters like and would never vote for". Although my vote is up for grabs, that said.
I like Jess and she did really well in the last election, when very few Labour candidates did. She is in tune with her people for sure but Ang has a bigger profile in the party and nationally.
Not sure about those last two words? At least, before scumgate.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.
Mermaids gets everywhere, doesn't it?
On @TOPPING’s question, there is a few problems that can arise from his scenario:
1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.
No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.
"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.
What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.
Mermaids gets everywhere, doesn't it?
On @TOPPING’s question, there is a few problems that can arise from his scenario:
1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x
Damn didn’t finish
2. If you have a positive discrimination policy, there is always the question of “did they only get the job because they were x?”.
I’m Topping’s scenario, it would be much better just to toss a coin.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
The rest is fluff.
No I've not. You put forward a stupid scenario I said I didn't accept.
Since I don't accept coin toss as a solution which was your forced choice alternative, I don't accept that bollocks either.
You are not allowed to not accept it because I'm guessing that for years and years not only have candidates been equal but, whisper it, minority candidates have been better but have been passed over because they have been minorities. There has been discrimination for years and years and the better candidate has time and again been looked over in favour of someone not from a minority background.
And now you are on your high horse bleating about how everyone should be treated equally.
I've always been in favour of treating everyone equally. Failing to do so is bad for minorities.
The Party of All Women Shortlists and discrimination has never had a female leader. The Party of treating everyone as an individual not a group has had two, and has the most ethnically diverse Cabinet ever.
You may be in favour of treating everyone equally and you've probably got a live chance of winning Miss World with such an attitude.
But the facts are that for decades there has been discrimination against minorities so it's a bit rich (me being polite) for you to be the champion of fair selection processes now.
And as for your other point - what is it exactly? The party of All Women Shortlists has more female MPs than The Party of Treating Everyone as an Individual 52% vs 24%. You're a numbers guy - are you saying that it is likely that in three quarters of selection processes the men were better than the women for the Conservatives?
Quite possibly, yes. Politics is a male-dominated sphere of interest, you only have to look at how few women are in this conversation on this website to see that.
Simply getting more women in to sit on the backbenches, while still promoting the men anyway, isn't a solution.
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
The rest is fluff.
No I've not. You put forward a stupid scenario I said I didn't accept.
Since I don't accept coin toss as a solution which was your forced choice alternative, I don't accept that bollocks either.
You are not allowed to not accept it because I'm guessing that for years and years not only have candidates been equal but, whisper it, minority candidates have been better but have been passed over because they have been minorities. There has been discrimination for years and years and the better candidate has time and again been looked over in favour of someone not from a minority background.
And now you are on your high horse bleating about how everyone should be treated equally.
I've always been in favour of treating everyone equally. Failing to do so is bad for minorities.
The Party of All Women Shortlists and discrimination has never had a female leader. The Party of treating everyone as an individual not a group has had two, and has the most ethnically diverse Cabinet ever.
You may be in favour of treating everyone equally and you've probably got a live chance of winning Miss World with such an attitude.
But the facts are that for decades there has been discrimination against minorities so it's a bit rich (me being polite) for you to be the champion of fair selection processes now.
And as for your other point - what is it exactly? The party of All Women Shortlists has more female MPs than The Party of Treating Everyone as an Individual 52% vs 24%. You're a numbers guy - are you saying that it is likely that in three quarters of selection processes the men were better than the women for the Conservatives?
Quite possibly, yes. Politics is a male-dominated sphere of interest, you only have to look at how few women are in this conversation on this website to see that.
Simply getting more women in to sit on the backbenches, while still promoting the men anyway, isn't a solution.
And what does that tell you? That institutionally politics needs to change so that women for whatever reason are not put off.
Why is it a "male-dominated sphere of interest"? Genetics? Chromosomes? You are so biased you are actually trying to justify the bias as though it is a natural phenomenon.
What is it about politics or barristers or baristas that is particularly "male" or "female".
Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.
Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.
If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.
It can be suitable in 3 specific scenarios -
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
#1 there should be a better way than discrimination to whittle down the candidates.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
You have already accepted that it is ok to positively discriminate.
The rest is fluff.
No I've not. You put forward a stupid scenario I said I didn't accept.
Since I don't accept coin toss as a solution which was your forced choice alternative, I don't accept that bollocks either.
You are not allowed to not accept it because I'm guessing that for years and years not only have candidates been equal but, whisper it, minority candidates have been better but have been passed over because they have been minorities. There has been discrimination for years and years and the better candidate has time and again been looked over in favour of someone not from a minority background.
And now you are on your high horse bleating about how everyone should be treated equally.
I've always been in favour of treating everyone equally. Failing to do so is bad for minorities.
The Party of All Women Shortlists and discrimination has never had a female leader. The Party of treating everyone as an individual not a group has had two, and has the most ethnically diverse Cabinet ever.
You may be in favour of treating everyone equally and you've probably got a live chance of winning Miss World with such an attitude.
But the facts are that for decades there has been discrimination against minorities so it's a bit rich (me being polite) for you to be the champion of fair selection processes now.
And as for your other point - what is it exactly? The party of All Women Shortlists has more female MPs than The Party of Treating Everyone as an Individual 52% vs 24%. You're a numbers guy - are you saying that it is likely that in three quarters of selection processes the men were better than the women for the Conservatives?
Quite possibly, yes. Politics is a male-dominated sphere of interest, you only have to look at how few women are in this conversation on this website to see that.
Simply getting more women in to sit on the backbenches, while still promoting the men anyway, isn't a solution.
And what does that tell you? That institutionally politics needs to change so that women for whatever reason are not put off.
Why is it a "male-dominated sphere of interest"? Genetics? Chromosomes? You are so biased you are actually trying to justify the bias as though it is a natural phenomenon.
What is it about politics or barristers or baristas that is particularly "male" or "female".
Oh but of course you are a champion of equality.
Absolutely don't put off women. If there's something that can be done to attract more women then great.
Maybe for starters look at the way MPs are treated by the press and social media, especially women. Maybe look at the way prospective parliamentary candidates are treated.
Simply saying "men need not apply" doesn't fix any of those issues isn't the solution though.
Comments
How far he has fallen.
If you can tell people apart, then treat them as individuals and don't discriminate against them. Job done.
What tie breaking procedures would you have from two people of the same minority or majority grouping who are "exactly" equal under normal circumstances?
Alan Johnson resigning as shadow chancellor perhaps also partly because he didn't feel he could do a great job?
So they might be things we can influence that will have a greater effect than face masks - and importantly they will help people in Wales who are already being told to use face masks, so can't use that intervention to reduce their higher transmission rate.
You can't just insist that every effect that results in Wales having greater transmission than England is something we can't do anything about without evidence.
Next Labour leader is a bit of a side show to this I expect.
Quotes a hefty chunk of her apology.
This organisation has never had a minority executive. Same candidates. You would not think that pour encourager les autres and to take positive action to address that, they should willingly and consciously choose a minority candidate.
Sink or swim for you?
Thing is, the non-minority population has hundreds of years of establishment over the minority population and no doubt in due course, a few years or decades, it will resolve itself. But I think it legitimate to think that's not good enough.
I knew Alan personally; he did retain a remarkable humility despite his career taking off so dramatically. I can make a credible case for being personally responsible for his entering parliament in the first place, but it would be too much typing.
Which also begs the question of whether she would she have apologised if she and her family hadn't received "terrifying and explicit" abuse?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/28/angela-rayner-statement-receiving-threats
I'm as dogmatically opposed to all-female shortlists as the next non-bigot, but in this case it might just about look convincing, since the two currently leading male candidates aren't even eligible.
But to deliberately pick a lesser candidate because of discrimination?
And no one is picking the "lesser candidate". There have been years of discrimination when in all likelihood the lesser candidate has been chosen because they were minorities. And it still happens. And while I appreciate that you have been a leading light in campaigning against this injustice sadly it has to date not been hugely effective.
* genuine question - am so confused by the right words now… there must be a snappier way of describing someone like that?
Labour’s real, big, humongous fault is to have ducked out of its promise to introduce a fairer voting system.
For which our house communist should forever be ashamed.
'Don’t call us Tories, plead Conservatives'
https://tinyurl.com/23hvaaef
The Scottish Conservatives@ScotTories Twitter account was not available for comment.
As someone who has bet on politics for many years, staking - at times - five figure sums, I’m really interested to know.
Your credibility on this site is on the line.
I don't disagree about what she said about Bunter and his pals either.
= Lab out of power for the foreseeable future.
Talk like that and you'll send me back voting for the Cons.
There was no UKIP, nor LD this time. And quite a fall in the Green vote too.
So. Not so simple as that. Nevertheless was a decent hold in an area Lab have been dire of late.
As always with 8 votes across the country, there were good and poor performances for all 4 main Parties to cherry pick.
There has been no real sign of a Labour surge in Council by-elections over the past few months taken in the round.
1. Where there are a large number of slots being competed for by an even (and much) larger number of candidates. Key being, all or almost all of the candidates are suitable, it's a matter of whittling down to what there's capacity for. Example, a top uni wishing to increase its number of students from ethnic minority or working class or state school backgrounds.
2. Where optics are important and for valid reasons. Example, that our main progressive party of the left ends the embarrassment of never having had a woman leader. Another example, where the police responsible for serving diverse communities wish to avoid being overwhelmingly white.
3. Where a high status, high reward, influential occupation is dominated by people from a privileged social background. Example, you name it.
There are probably other scenarios too, where positive discrimination can work well, but these are what spring to mind for me.
Bah, facts - just mere facts!
My knowledge of Labour MPs is less encyclopedic than others, but I don't think there are any trans Labour MPs.
Still can’t see her, limped Phillips, as PM material.
Phillipson is really smart. People shouldn’t underrate her.
Her seat will be safer next time especially with her higher profile. I’m a fan. We don’t have many good labour MPs in the North East but she is one.
#2 So you want to use the candidate to cover up your own embarrassment? Not because you think they're the right person for the job? They're a tool for your own agenda?
#3 If the job is high reward and influential surely its even more important to get the right person for the job? If the right person is from a minority then great, ensure there's no barriers in their way.
Sorry to hear about the confusion over words. I'm sure it's nothing. Did you get your 8 hours last night?
The rest is fluff.
Labour need a leader in touch with the working person. Ideally with some background in small business, where they could really make hay.
As we are now nobody comes to mind. Rayner is probably the best of a bad bunch.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/19303/incredible-world-navel-fluff
Since I don't accept coin toss as a solution which was your forced choice alternative, I don't accept that bollocks either.
I appreciate that this falls into the "Lab leaders Tory voters like and would never vote for". Although my vote is up for grabs, that said.
And now you are on your high horse bleating about how everyone should be treated equally.
The Party of All Women Shortlists and discrimination has never had a female leader. The Party of treating everyone as an individual not a group has had two, and has the most ethnically diverse Cabinet ever.
But she does stand out. She’s a good communicator, never flustered, and always seems to perform well. She held her seat with a decent margin last time out and she did hold her seat when others struggled.
The Aldi fairly-close looking equivalent is £1.49, and doesn't really seem much different. Rice instead of sweet tatty.
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-plant-menu-smoky-jackfruit-chilli-400g/4088600201733
My habit is to pick a selection of these up on a big shop, and have one (or part of one) occasionally as part of a meal.
2. If there's a strong female candidate for Labour leader she IS the right person for the job. This is the point. Has to be very very good though. No tokenism. Too important for that.
3. Yep, it's about getting the best person for the job. Exactly so. And in professions dominated by 'good chaps' and 'networks' we're a million miles from that, therefore disruption is needed. It might hurt for a while but you know what they say, no pain no gain.
But the facts are that for decades there has been discrimination against minorities so it's a bit rich (me being polite) for you to be the champion of fair selection processes now.
And as for your other point - what is it exactly? The party of All Women Shortlists has more female MPs than The Party of Treating Everyone as an Individual 52% vs 24%. You're a numbers guy - are you saying that it is likely that in three quarters of selection processes the men were better than the women for the Conservatives?
Chip would be a good name for a Trump son. Perhaps the Don still has it in him for one more squirt.
I don't agree with blatant discrimination as that corrective action.
1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x
2. If you have a positive discrimination policy, there is always the question of “did they only get the job because they were x?”.
I’m Topping’s scenario, it would be much better just to toss a coin.
Simply getting more women in to sit on the backbenches, while still promoting the men anyway, isn't a solution.
6 from 2 needed. Should have been 8 from 2 with a new batsman on strike.
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1454056436351311875?s=20
Why is it a "male-dominated sphere of interest"? Genetics? Chromosomes? You are so biased you are actually trying to justify the bias as though it is a natural phenomenon.
What is it about politics or barristers or baristas that is particularly "male" or "female".
Oh but of course you are a champion of equality.
Maybe for starters look at the way MPs are treated by the press and social media, especially women.
Maybe look at the way prospective parliamentary candidates are treated.
Simply saying "men need not apply" doesn't fix any of those issues isn't the solution though.