Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Um no - it's not the course / exam that's important.
It's your behaviour afterwards - if it doesn't reflect the learnings of the course they will be able to remove you and when you go to a tribunal they will go - you were told XYZ, agreed XYZ but then didn't follow it...
Your paranoia that they are out to get you is focussed on the wrong place...
Yes, I know. But the point is they will correlate it to the course - so it risks becoming a smoking gun. It's crucial to have that in your armoury.
FWIW, there's nothing wrong with my behaviour: unlike some of the morons on here disliking Wokeism isn't correlated with being a reactionary. Every single one of my direct reports happens to be in a different "identity group" to my own - two of whom requested me to mentor them - but that hasn't been engineered and to me it's barely worth even commenting on.
None even mention anything vaguely woke. I just treat them all as individuals.
If you have nothing to hide, why try to game the answers? Indeed a high score only sets a higher bar for your behaviour IRL.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
One can only water the soil; if it is already salty, little or nothing will grow.
You learn by talking to other people who think differently to you, and understanding their point of view - not through activist inspired re-education programmes that hector you to have the "right" opinions.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Um no - it's not the course / exam that's important.
It's your behaviour afterwards - if it doesn't reflect the learnings of the course they will be able to remove you and when you go to a tribunal they will go - you were told XYZ, agreed XYZ but then didn't follow it...
Your paranoia that they are out to get you is focussed on the wrong place...
Yes, I know. But the point is they will correlate it to the course - so it risks becoming a smoking gun. It's crucial to have that in your armoury.
FWIW, there's nothing wrong with my behaviour: unlike some of the morons on here disliking Wokeism isn't correlated with being a reactionary. Every single one of my direct reports happens to be in a different "identity group" to my own - two of whom requested me to mentor them - but that hasn't been engineered and to me it's barely worth even commenting on.
None even mention anything vaguely woke. I just treat them all as individuals.
And when I'm given a course to do I always have to wear the "were I an employee what answer are they expecting here". and once in a while it's actually interesting see reason why Nigel Farage couldn't be told why his account was closed example I gave earlier...
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Um no - it's not the course / exam that's important.
It's your behaviour afterwards - if it doesn't reflect the learnings of the course they will be able to remove you and when you go to a tribunal they will go - you were told XYZ, agreed XYZ but then didn't follow it...
Your paranoia that they are out to get you is focussed on the wrong place...
Yes, I know. But the point is they will correlate it to the course - so it risks becoming a smoking gun. It's crucial to have that in your armoury.
FWIW, there's nothing wrong with my behaviour: unlike some of the morons on here disliking Wokeism isn't correlated with being a reactionary. Every single one of my direct reports happens to be in a different "identity group" to my own - two of whom requested me to mentor them - but that hasn't been engineered and to me it's barely worth even commenting on.
None even mention anything vaguely woke. I just treat them all as individuals.
As I said you seem to be paranoid about it - and that's something I just don't get.
Mind you I contract and i'm perfectly happy that I may be shown the door at any point if they decide they no longer need me...
And when I'm given a course to do I always have to wear the "were I an employee what answer are they expecting here". and once in a while it's actually interesting see reason why Nigel Farage couldn't be told why his account was closed example I gave earlier...
Ultimately, having to do stuff you otherwise wouldn't want to do is the lot of an employee. That's still true if you are a senior employee.
Or as the Church of England oath of obedience puts it,
I, A B, do swear by Almighty God that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Lord Bishop of C and his successors in all things lawful and honest: So help me God...
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Um no - it's not the course / exam that's important.
It's your behaviour afterwards - if it doesn't reflect the learnings of the course they will be able to remove you and when you go to a tribunal they will go - you were told XYZ, agreed XYZ but then didn't follow it...
Your paranoia that they are out to get you is focussed on the wrong place...
Yes, I know. But the point is they will correlate it to the course - so it risks becoming a smoking gun. It's crucial to have that in your armoury.
FWIW, there's nothing wrong with my behaviour: unlike some of the morons on here disliking Wokeism isn't correlated with being a reactionary. Every single one of my direct reports happens to be in a different "identity group" to my own - two of whom requested me to mentor them - but that hasn't been engineered and to me it's barely worth even commenting on.
None even mention anything vaguely woke. I just treat them all as individuals.
If you have nothing to hide, why try to game the answers? Indeed a high score only sets a higher bar for your behaviour IRL.
Because I'm not stupid.
Clearly this may be different but when I did unconscious bias training some years ago the results of the tests were known only to me. And quite surprising they were to me too.
The point about unconscious bias is it's not the individual's fault (it's largely the environment you were raised in) and there's not that much you can do about it except be aware of it.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
My commiserations. Grin and bear it, while reflecting on the wedge you're being paid for just sitting there.
In preparation I'd suggest a read of 'The End of the World is Flat' by Simon Edge.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Um no - it's not the course / exam that's important.
It's your behaviour afterwards - if it doesn't reflect the learnings of the course they will be able to remove you and when you go to a tribunal they will go - you were told XYZ, agreed XYZ but then didn't follow it...
Your paranoia that they are out to get you is focussed on the wrong place...
Yes, I know. But the point is they will correlate it to the course - so it risks becoming a smoking gun. It's crucial to have that in your armoury.
FWIW, there's nothing wrong with my behaviour: unlike some of the morons on here disliking Wokeism isn't correlated with being a reactionary. Every single one of my direct reports happens to be in a different "identity group" to my own - two of whom requested me to mentor them - but that hasn't been engineered and to me it's barely worth even commenting on.
None even mention anything vaguely woke. I just treat them all as individuals.
If you have nothing to hide, why try to game the answers? Indeed a high score only sets a higher bar for your behaviour IRL.
Because I'm not stupid.
Clearly this may be different but when I did unconscious bias training some years ago the results of the tests were known only to me. And quite surprising they were to me too.
The point about unconscious bias is it's not the individual's fault (it's largely the environment you were raised in) and there's not that much you can do about it except be aware of it.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
I thought you were Director level ! Moving to a smaller company is your best bet for ridding yourself of that sort of stuff I think.
Spring may be the conventional wisdom but remember Boris's landslide came in December. .
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, December 2019 was a one-off. It was a ‘Get Brexit Done’ vote after a stalemate parliament was seen by many to be refusing to enact the will of the people.
It is not to be taken as a benchmark for any normal General Election.
However, you are not the Prime Minister, looking at precedents on when to call an election, so can be safely ignored.
We can all be safely ignored on here but that would rather defeat the object of the site.
For what it's worth, I think @Heathener's right on this point.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
I thought you were Director level ! Moving to a smaller company is your best bet for ridding yourself of that sort of stuff I think.
I'm self-employed so I'm going to have an earnest chat with myself about it then award myself a sticker.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
I do the same ones every year Carnyx, crap like this, fraud, etc , etc. Janet and John stuff. You would have to be a brain dead moron or in wrong job not to understand them, you are there to work, not be a racist, mysoginist, get freebies or bungs, fiddle your timesheets , etc. Those are things you should do in your own time if so inclined.
“..be a racist, mysoginist, get freebies or bungs, fiddle your timesheets” - yes, definitely “Those are things you should do in your own time” :-)
I’ve always founds the trainings comic. The fraud training that can be summed up as “In the multi choice test, do you pick Committing The Obvious Fraud?”… all the others are the same.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
The difference is PMs trailing in the polls don't want to call an early general election they likely lose and cut their length in office in the history books
Helluva cliff edge we're tapdancing near. If the final score is C214L340, Team Sunak have dodged a whole firing squad worth of bullets. C32L536 on the other hand...
Helluva cliff edge we're tapdancing near. If the final score is C214L340, Team Sunak have dodged a whole firing squad worth of bullets. C32L536 on the other hand...
Agreed, Stuart.
The simplified table....
Party Pred Votes Pred Seats
CON 23.6% 90 LAB 43.3% 459 LIB 10.2 49 Refor 12.1% 0 Green 5.5% 2 SNP 3.5% 28
The difference is PMs trailing in the polls don't want to call an early general election they likely lose and cut their length in office in the history books
Some of that but also, 'something may come up Mr Micawber'.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
On legislation: no direct link to specific acts demanding employee training, on the whole, I believe, to compare with the sort of law that mandates a trained first aider for x employees (?). More a general response by the employer in view of the various criminal and civil laws, which, for instance, make it possible to sue a university on the grounds that your lecturer shagged you and marked you down; or indeed for that lecturer to sue for unfair dismissal as a result of being sacked. And generally the less hassle of that kind the better the environment.
No-one can evaluate unconscious bias. There are various training programmes to check for it and give some suggestions. Found it useful myself. As a result, much more sympathetic to modern ways of doing interviews, and so on, which help ensure one isn't missing stuff.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
And all this 'elf'n'safety industry is due to the Tories (Major?) introducing the no-win-no-fee claims system.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
Yes we all have unconscious bias, no, we have no idea what most of them are, but they probably cover almost everything. It gives a name to a universal fact of human nature.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
And all this 'elf'n'safety industry is due to the Tories (Major?) introducing the no-win-no-fee claims system.
No, it isn't.
It's due to the idea that companies are liable for stuff. The problem is the implementation.
Oh, and Health and Safety is vital - the lessons there are written in blood.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
Yes we all have unconscious bias, no, we have no idea what most of them are, but they probably cover almost everything. It gives a name to a universal fact of human nature.
Broadly true but we can get some insights into what our own unconscious biases are and that can be helpful.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
JUst so. Me too.
Everybody has some bias for certain, more likely to just make you paranoid and make crazy decisions to try and fit the bias of the unconcious bias education propaganda you were fed.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
JUst so. Me too.
Everybody has some bias for certain, more likely to just make you paranoid and make crazy decisions to try and fit the bias of the unconcious bias education propaganda you were fed.
Well, if that describes one main effect on me, it's certainly one way to describe being more systematic and careful when doing job application assessments!
An interesting short 3 minute video about a *stacked* pedestrian / cycling / road tunnel under a railway, due to the need to replace an urban level crossing and restricted width.
On topic, and I expect this point has already been made, but the logic is back-to-front. PMs go to the country at 4 years when they expect to win; they don't win because they go after 4 years (though there is probably a small degree of the two factors reinforcing each other). Sunak would not have won had he gone to the country last autumn - or indeed, now.
Put simply, the length of a parliamentary term is not an independent variable - and, of course, there are plenty of other important variables in the mix.
- May could easily have lost in 2017 had the manifesto been published a few days earlier; - 2019 could have resulted in any number of outcomes depending on when and how it had been called, who the leaders had been at the time, the Tories' and Brexit Party's attitudes towards Brexit and each other, and so on; - 1983/4 would have been a very different election without the happenstance of the Falklands (and its outcome, which was not preordained); - 2005 could have been quite different had the Hutton Inquiry concluded (as it well might) that Blair did mislead parliament on the case for the war in Iraq;
and so on.
PMs will always seek to call an election based on: 1. Whether they think they can win at that time; 2. Whether they think a more optimal moment will come later, within the limits of the parliament. 3. The balance of risks that things for them will improve versus get worse.
Obviously, any or all of these judgments can be wrong and the three factors have to be balanced, rather like a cricket captain judging when (or in that case, if) to declare, balancing runs in the bank against time, weather, fatigue and the quality of the opposition.
I can see the objective argument that Sunak's best chance was this May, now gone. But had he gone with it, he would still likely have led his party to a crushing defeat - and it would be precious little consolation to argue "but it would have been even worse after another 6 months of my leadership", which is in any case an impossible case to argue with any self-respect.
An interesting short 3 minute video about a *stacked* pedestrian / cycling / road tunnel under a railway, due to the need to replace an urban level crossing and restricted width.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
JUst so. Me too.
Everybody has some bias for certain, more likely to just make you paranoid and make crazy decisions to try and fit the bias of the unconcious bias education propaganda you were fed.
Well, if that describes one main effect on me, it's certainly one way to describe being more systematic and careful when doing job application assessments!
However you may be being more biased in other ways now as you are conciously biased as well as unconciously now perhaps.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
if you're managing more than 1 person you have to do this so the company can cover itself if it turns out you been treating them inequitably.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
The saving grace is that the number of seats where that's going to be a decisive issue is probably pretty small.
I have done them in the past. Four pictures of people. Some combination of black, white, Asian, South Asian, male, female, one in a wheelchair, one with one hand, one in a smart suit, one in business casual (ugh).
Question: which one of these do you think is a bricklayer.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
I think @Foxy and @ydoethur are right. A lot of these courses are there to provide the background paperwork to allow the firing later....
For most people the course is repeating the obvious but for some its essential and ensures that if action is required there is evidence to protect HR were an employment tribunal to occur..
Which is why I have no choice but to complete it in a timely manner and to do research in advance to ensure I get the highest score possible. I did refuse to answer questions on my race when joining the firm and am in a minority of staff who haven't "he/himed" beneath their email signatures. However, you have to pick your battles.
What it won't do is make a jot of difference to my personal beliefs or attitudes.
Um no - it's not the course / exam that's important.
It's your behaviour afterwards - if it doesn't reflect the learnings of the course they will be able to remove you and when you go to a tribunal they will go - you were told XYZ, agreed XYZ but then didn't follow it...
Your paranoia that they are out to get you is focussed on the wrong place...
Yes, I know. But the point is they will correlate it to the course - so it risks becoming a smoking gun. It's crucial to have that in your armoury.
FWIW, there's nothing wrong with my behaviour: unlike some of the morons on here disliking Wokeism isn't correlated with being a reactionary. Every single one of my direct reports happens to be in a different "identity group" to my own - two of whom requested me to mentor them - but that hasn't been engineered and to me it's barely worth even commenting on.
None even mention anything vaguely woke. I just treat them all as individuals.
If you have nothing to hide, why try to game the answers? Indeed a high score only sets a higher bar for your behaviour IRL.
Princess Leia said "It's a trap!" , not once, but TWICE, in the previous Star Wars movie:
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
There's a distinct 'what's best for Labour is best for the country' vibe there. FPTP duopoly mindset.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
Just so. Me too.
The problem here is perhaps that those designing, administering and reviewing the results of such courses imagine that they are somehow immune to their own particular biases.
I simultaneously have some sympathy with Casino, and think that he seriously overreacts to what is a relatively minor irritation.
Good morning all. Thank you @TopDog for an excellent thread.
Callaghan (1978/9) and Major (1997) gave the impression of clinging on until the last minute and the electorate knew it. Major wouldn’t have won if he had gone sooner than May 1997 but the defeat might have been less severe. Callaghan might have run Thatcher close if he had gone in 1978 - remember that even after the subsequent Winter of Discontent she ‘only’ won a 44 seat majority. Gordon Brown also clung on and it’s likewise quite possible that he would have won if he had gone to the country in 2009.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that things will get worse not better for Rishi Sunak’s tories through this year. I listen to a lot of people across the political spectrum and they all want this to come before the country now.
With each passing week it becomes clearer to the British public that Rishi Sunak is in office but not in power.
Callaghan didn’t go to the polls in 1978 because (as with Brown in 2007) his internal polling showed a picture a good deal less rosy than the one the papers were painting. He decided it would be better to wait and see what happened. Unfortunately for him it was the Winter of Discontent.
Brown, had he gone in 2009, would have lost very badly. The extra six months gave time for doubts about Cameron’s vacuity to surface. Didn’t help Labour’s poll share - they still had the worst result in terms of the popular vote of any government since 1832 - but it cost the Tories enough votes to put even a small majority out of reach.
That’s clearly what Sunak is hoping for here. It may happen, as well, although I don’t think it will even come close to saving his government.
A hung parliament won't save his government (Sunak's). Let's be honest, the direction of travel is everything. If the Cons lose 100 seats and Labour gains them, whilst technically the Conservatives could form a coalition government, no one will work with them. We saw this in 2010, and heck, even February 1974.
For the Conservatives its a majority or bust. And if they know they won't get a majority then its bust.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
It is pretty improbable, though not outright impossible. The key to it is that Reform 'high' number of 22 MPs - if they can take that many MPs then they'll be making enough inroads in enough 'safe' Tory seats that there'll be a pincer effect with Labour and the Lib Dems (primarily) gaining a lot more as the Tory vote just sinks.
But for the Tories to be down in the 30s means losing a *lot* of seats where neither Labour nor the Lib Dems have much local data or organisation (though nor do the Tories, in a lot of cases), and both are starting *far* behind. It could happen but it'd need a vote split something like 45 / 19 / 10 / 18.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
That isn't true.
I can't speak for the entire liberal -left but perhaps we think assimilating as much evidence and making judgement calls on the back of that evidence is healthy.
Your view is; some bastard is trying to brainwash me, which I suspect is a wholly false narrative.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
As an (ex) civil servant, I attended a multitude of course on unconscious bias, diversity issues, safeguarding etc. What's missing from the debate on here is that there's no discussion of the quality of the training itself, which is hugely variable. Maybe those who reject all such training have been unlucky and just had poor-quality training.
The courses I did ranged from the utterly banal and useless at one end, to the genuinely eye-opening, 'I need to re-think' at the other end, with many in the middle. But enough of them were good enough to have an impact on my attitudes and practice at work to make them worthwhile, overall.
As a side note, my experience was that online training packages were generally significantly more banal than in-person, group training, with few exceptions.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
if you're managing more than 1 person you have to do this so the company can cover itself if it turns out you been treating them inequitably.
CCHQ could probably pick up a few hundred votes with "Sunak to ban unconscious bias training". Will be in the Telegraph next week.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
That isn't true.
I can't speak for the entire liberal -left but perhaps we think assimilating as much evidence and making judgement calls on the back of that evidence is healthy.
Your view is; some bastard is trying to brainwash me, which I suspect is a wholly false narrative.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
Just so. Me too.
The problem here is perhaps that those designing, administering and reviewing the results of such courses imagine that they are somehow immune to their own particular biases.
I simultaneously have some sympathy with Casino, and think that he seriously overreacts to what is a relatively minor irritation.
Mm. It's a fair point to raise, your first para, but certainly the courses I did seemed reasonably open-ended to the degree that the only implicit bias was that there was a potential problem which needed to be dealt with - edit: actually, it was fairly explicit!
The other point that might be made is that we are all vulnerable - so even if some HR procedures are of no value to us personally others might well be. Consider, for instance, unconscious bias against the older employee. Even *conscious* bias was perfectly legal until quite recently. So new employees need to understand the situation. And so on.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
if you're managing more than 1 person you have to do this so the company can cover itself if it turns out you been treating them inequitably.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
It is pretty improbable, though not outright impossible. The key to it is that Reform 'high' number of 22 MPs - if they can take that many MPs then they'll be making enough inroads in enough 'safe' Tory seats that there'll be a pincer effect with Labour and the Lib Dems (primarily) gaining a lot more as the Tory vote just sinks.
But for the Tories to be down in the 30s means losing a *lot* of seats where neither Labour nor the Lib Dems have much local data or organisation (though nor do the Tories, in a lot of cases), and both are starting *far* behind. It could happen but it'd need a vote split something like 45 / 19 / 10 / 18.
Yes, and for the avoidance of doubt, David, this is not an outcome I would particularly relish. You understand my views on good government and effective oppositin, no doubt.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
That isn't true.
I can't speak for the entire liberal -left but perhaps we think assimilating as much evidence and making judgement calls on the back of that evidence is healthy.
Your view is; some bastard is trying to brainwash me, which I suspect is a wholly false narrative.
Largely, but not wholly false, IMO.
I suspect it depends on the course material and the presenter.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
That can fall down when a local party decides not to play along.
Who would you consider best placed in a seat with:
Previous notionals of Con 50, LD 31, Lab 16 County Council representation of Con 5, LD 5, Green 1 (0 Lab) District Council of Con 1, LD 20, Lab 3, Green 3
And where the LDs have been working it hard since 2019 and Labour have only just started?
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
That isn't true.
I can't speak for the entire liberal -left but perhaps we think assimilating as much evidence and making judgement calls on the back of that evidence is healthy.
Your view is; some bastard is trying to brainwash me, which I suspect is a wholly false narrative.
Largely, but not wholly false, IMO.
I suspect it depends on the course material and the presenter.
Also, it seems to form a very small part of the overall training courses - on such things as racial discrimination, staff selection, IT behaviour (security, emails, etc.), and so on and so forth. I suspect it's used as a stalking horse or scapegoat for all those things which stop one behaving as one would sometines like.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
There won't be any formal arrangements between Labour and the Lib Dems but once the campaign stars "non political" organisations like Best for Britain will promote tactical voting and publish lists showing which party is best placed to beat the Tory in each constituency. Their recommendations will be taken up by the parties on the ground and this will do a lot to reduce the risk of LD/Labour infighting letting the Tories through the middle.
And Labour has a long-standing policy of twinning safe and unwinnable constituencies with marginals and targets. Activists in seats where the Lib Dems are the main challengers will be sent to other constituencies where Labour's prospect are brighter.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
if you're managing more than 1 person you have to do this so the company can cover itself if it turns out you been treating them inequitably.
This seems unlikely. I work for a Council run school. I haven't, and am not aware of anyone else having unconscious bias training. In fact, I haven't had any equality nor diversity training in the two years I've worked there. Safeguarding, yes.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
Labour are a bit thick that they haven't cottoned on that FPTP is not their friend. What is it? FPTP has delivered circa 25 years of Labour Governments in the last 75
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
It's a possibility that has been little mentioned, LP, but I agree with you.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
Those would perhaps need lowish RefUK votes wrt Tories, too.
How many have that?
In this part of the red wall it feels as if the Torys and RefUK are going to sink into the abyss together, still eating each other like a double ouroboros.
I'm sure @TSE has a suitable, similar Greek myth he can recount.
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
That isn't true.
I can't speak for the entire liberal -left but perhaps we think assimilating as much evidence and making judgement calls on the back of that evidence is healthy.
Your view is; some bastard is trying to brainwash me, which I suspect is a wholly false narrative.
Largely, but not wholly false, IMO.
I suspect it depends on the course material and the presenter.
Bet it is nearly 100% online "Janet and John " stuff with a test at end of each section a la Topping's excellent post on it.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
Labour are a bit thick that they haven't cottoned on that FPTP is not their friend. What is it? FPTP has delivered circa 25 years of Labour Governments in the last 75
It's just a crap system, MP, and should be abolished, but it is self-perpetuatiing.
The US warned Russia on 6 March that Crocus City Hall was a potential terrorist target. Both have confirmed it. That was the day before the US warned its citizens to avoid large gatherings. This makes a scenario similar to the 1999 Moscow apartment block bombings improbable, albeit not impossible.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
Is that why thee's no Reform candidate listed (yet) for Witham?
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
That can fall down when a local party decides not to play along.
Who would you consider best placed in a seat with:
Previous notionals of Con 50, LD 31, Lab 16 County Council representation of Con 5, LD 5, Green 1 (0 Lab) District Council of Con 1, LD 20, Lab 3, Green 3
And where the LDs have been working it hard since 2019 and Labour have only just started?
Oh, it's problematic alright, Andy. My own seat of Tewkesbury is a good example. But nerds like us ought to do their best.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
That can fall down when a local party decides not to play along.
Who would you consider best placed in a seat with:
Previous notionals of Con 50, LD 31, Lab 16 County Council representation of Con 5, LD 5, Green 1 (0 Lab) District Council of Con 1, LD 20, Lab 3, Green 3
And where the LDs have been working it hard since 2019 and Labour have only just started?
Oh, it's problematic alright, Andy. My own seat of Tewkesbury is a good example. But nerds like us ought to do their best.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
Labour are a bit thick that they haven't cottoned on that FPTP is not their friend. What is it? FPTP has delivered circa 25 years of Labour Governments in the last 75
They still though cherish the idea of replacing the Tories as the "natural party of government".
I have done them in the past. Four pictures of people. Some combination of black, white, Asian, South Asian, male, female, one in a wheelchair, one with one hand, one in a smart suit, one in business casual (ugh).
Question: which one of these do you think is a bricklayer.
Absurd.
1. It's like Mansonian conditioning. 2+2=5 is everywhere in British culture nowadays.
2. It's also illustration of mass white-collar overemployment since the onset of widespread computerisation about 40 years ago.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
Labour are a bit thick that they haven't cottoned on that FPTP is not their friend. What is it? FPTP has delivered circa 25 years of Labour Governments in the last 75
In 1945, 1966, 1997 and 2001 and 2005 and on current polls FPTP was/is Labour's friend delivering big majorities. In 2017 FPTP got Corbyn just 60 odd seats from a majority.
Corbynites often tend to oppose PR on the basis that the road to socialism does not lie in post election coalition governments with the Liberal Democrats. It was always the Roy Jenkins Social Democrats and LDs who were most in favour of PR (along with the Greens now and Reform)
Is it true that "for the Tories to be down in the 30s means losing a *lot* of seats where neither Labour nor the Lib Dems have much local data or organisation"?
I live in a classic Blue Wall seat: on paper among the Tories' 50 safest. Since 2019, the Tory vote has collapsed in local elections, and our Parish, District and County councils are now dominated by anti-Tories. Whether they can break through to take the Parliamentary seat is debateable: the anti-Tory vote is split between LDs, Lab and Greens and there's not a shred of evidence Reform has any local following, so there's a depressingly high chance the much-maligned local Tory will survive.
But what's absolutely NOT true is that the LDs lack data or organisation. Unlike either Lab or Tories, the LDs have both everywhere in the Westminster seat- and their activists are fit enough to organise the less fit into backroom tasks, while no Tory has been seen canvassing, telling or pumping out leaflets for at least 7 years. And in the naturally Labour-leaning parts of the Parliamentary constituency, Labour has similar campaigning strength..
Over the past 20 years, in this bit of the Blue Wall we've seen two profound political changes. The Tories' traditional role as social backdrop to the area has disappeared. And with it, the Tories' ability to understand the mentality of this bit of Middle England. Here at least (and OK, the area's particular uniqueness is the astronomic proportion of the electorate with postgraduate degrees) it's the anti-Tories who understand this - and the Tories who still live (for their few remaining years) in the forelock-tugging 1950s
Mr. Royale, good luck with the mind control and guilt training.
There's a lot of emerging evidence now that unconscious bias training courses are either ineffective - and actually waste time and money - or slightly negative as they reinforce people identifying along identity group lines and thus contribute to polarisation.
What's so fascinating here is that many on the liberal-left think Juche is an effective re-education programme for the delinquents.
That isn't true.
I can't speak for the entire liberal -left but perhaps we think assimilating as much evidence and making judgement calls on the back of that evidence is healthy.
Your view is; some bastard is trying to brainwash me, which I suspect is a wholly false narrative.
Largely, but not wholly false, IMO.
I suspect it depends on the course material and the presenter.
Bet it is nearly 100% online "Janet and John " stuff with a test at end of each section a la Topping's excellent post on it.
Well you are obviously using the wrong training provider.
My courses focus on legislation, regulation, and obligations to the above. Compliance with for example, the Equalities Act 2010 , Equal Pay Act 1970, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and GDPR.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
That can fall down when a local party decides not to play along.
Who would you consider best placed in a seat with:
Previous notionals of Con 50, LD 31, Lab 16 County Council representation of Con 5, LD 5, Green 1 (0 Lab) District Council of Con 1, LD 20, Lab 3, Green 3
And where the LDs have been working it hard since 2019 and Labour have only just started?
Local parties do not have the option of "not playing along" - all Labour's targeting is done centrally and members are contacted directly telling them where they should be concentrating their efforts. Of course a few may ignore the instructions but this will have no practical impact on the ground - the kind of members who ignore party priorities are not those likely to be able to run effective local campaigns. And anyway most party members will be on board with the targeting strategy.
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It could be a saving grace for some Tories, and damage the potential tactical voting that @Peter_the_Punter refers to above.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
My impression is that there was, if not a Sordid Deal, at least a conveniently shared understanding of the realities of the electoral map in the earlier years of the Parliament. Possibly oiled by a deniable "oops, I'm forever leaving bits of paper around" conversation in the backroom of a dingy Westminster pub.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
Labour are a bit thick that they haven't cottoned on that FPTP is not their friend. What is it? FPTP has delivered circa 25 years of Labour Governments in the last 75
They still though cherish the idea of replacing the Tories as the "natural party of government".
The US warned Russia on 6 March that Crocus City Hall was a potential terrorist target. Both have confirmed it. That was the day before the US warned its citizens to avoid large gatherings. This makes a scenario similar to the 1999 Moscow apartment block bombings improbable, albeit not impossible.
Meanwhile, this is the new normal in Europe. It should not be accepted as such.
In March alone, Russian terrorists used over 400 missiles of various types, 600 "Shahed" drones, and over 3,000 guided aerial bombs against Ukraine.
This terror is wreaking havoc on cities and villages throughout Ukraine, and Russia is particularly relentless in bombarding frontline and border areas.
Our city of over a million people, Kharkiv, has been subjected to missile and drone strikes since the full-scale war began. Recently, Russian terrorists also began to use aerial bombs against Kharkiv. The city sees daily humiliation and pain, as well as daily losses. Critical infrastructure has been destroyed, and ordinary residential buildings are being demolished on a daily basis.
None of this will be possible when Ukraine receives reliable air defense systems capable of saving lives and restoring security to our cities. "Patriots" in the hands of Ukrainians have demonstrated that all forms of Russian terror can be defeated.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
Labour are a bit thick that they haven't cottoned on that FPTP is not their friend. What is it? FPTP has delivered circa 25 years of Labour Governments in the last 75
In 1945, 1966, 1997 and 2001 and 2005 and on current polls FPTP was/is Labour's friend delivering big majorities. In 2017 FPTP got Corbyn just 60 odd seats from a majority.
Corbynites often tend to oppose PR on the basis that the road to socialism does not lie in post election coalition governments with the Liberal Democrats. It was always the Roy Jenkins Social Democrats and LDs who were most in favour of PR (along with the Greens now and Reform)
Thank you Lord Astor. Mandy Rice-Davies sends her regards.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
Sounds like a load of crap. Dreamt up by companies offering these courses to milk money from companies and HR departments jumping on it to be seen to do the right thing.
Yes, I suspect it's actually to give the company a defence: "look, all our people have done the training" and, as you say, it creates a nice little business for those who create them.
I will report back once I've done it.
if you're managing more than 1 person you have to do this so the company can cover itself if it turns out you been treating them inequitably.
It’s mostly coming from the US, headed by institutional investors under the label ESG (environmental, social, and governance) and more recently DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Some of the American DEI courses are straightforward “Critical Race Theory” as espoused by organisations such as Black Liver Matter, and are not going to make workplaces anything than much more adversarial, dividing people into “Oppressor” and “Oppressed” groups based on immutable characteristics.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
It's a possibility that has been little mentioned, LP, but I agree with you.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
In terms of whether Sunak will have a good campaign the evidence stacks up as follows.
BAD CAMPAIGN Poor judgement. Comes across as insincere. Uncanny valley in interviews with the public. Appeared to just give up on recent by-elections.
GOOD CAMPAIGN Uxbridge by-election shows that if they can find a wedge issue they can exploit it.
JUST IN: An extraordinary filing from Jack Smith tonight that is almost incredulous at how legally incorrect Judge Cannon's jury instruction scenarios are re: Trump's claim that he designted reams of classified info as "personal" on the way out of the WH. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1775370773705687271
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
It's a possibility that has been little mentioned, LP, but I agree with you.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
In terms of whether Sunak will have a good campaign the evidence stacks up as follows.
BAD CAMPAIGN Poor judgement. Comes across as insincere. Uncanny valley in interviews with the public. Appeared to just give up on recent by-elections.
GOOD CAMPAIGN Uxbridge by-election shows that if they can find a wedge issue they can exploit it.
Check out the swing in Uxbridge, and it was a wedge issue of the moment.
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
Just so. Me too.
The problem here is perhaps that those designing, administering and reviewing the results of such courses imagine that they are somehow immune to their own particular biases.
I simultaneously have some sympathy with Casino, and think that he seriously overreacts to what is a relatively minor irritation.
Mm. It's a fair point to raise, your first para, but certainly the courses I did seemed reasonably open-ended to the degree that the only implicit bias was that there was a potential problem which needed to be dealt with - edit: actually, it was fairly explicit!
The other point that might be made is that we are all vulnerable - so even if some HR procedures are of no value to us personally others might well be. Consider, for instance, unconscious bias against the older employee. Even *conscious* bias was perfectly legal until quite recently. So new employees need to understand the situation. And so on.
Rather than “bias” it can just be accidental ignorance which would be fairer as less accusatory. For example had my eyes opened to a form of unconscious ignorance on here yesterday. There was a link to an article about the number of pregnancies in Texas resulting from rape since Roe v wade was squashed.
I looked at the figure, think it was 26,000, and thought that’s got to be absolute bullshit. 26,000 women pregnant from rapes must mean that significantly higher numbers were raped which just can’t be true.
I looked at the population of Texas and thought it’s below half of the UK so that would mean there must be double maybe in UK so I looked up UK stats.
I just couldn’t believe that many women are raped each year. Seriously staggered. I thought it was a couple of thousand, which would be grim enough but the figures are huge.
So I learnt something that countered my beliefs which might have coloured my judgement on issues and arguments. I didn’t have a bias in any way but I just didn’t know.
So if we are trying to “improve” people then maybe best to come at it from an enlightening angle rather than a hectoring angle.
Is TopDog a regular on the site? I've got to say there is virtually nothing in this article that I agree with. Thatcher and Blair didn't win elections I would suggest because of timing. If governments are ahead after 4 years they hold elections. If not they wait as long as they can for something to turn up. The exceptions being Heath, effectively unable to govern due to labour relations, May thinking she could get a big majority (and then didn't) and Johnson because Parliament was descending into farce.
Many former Prime ministers would have done different things to Sunak and might have made a better fist of the job than he has. I don't think any of them would have held an election early when the polls didn't state a likely victory.
Is TopDog a regular on the site? I've got to say there is virtually nothing in this article that I agree with. Thatcher and Blair didn't win elections I would suggest because of timing. If governments are ahead after 4 years they hold elections. If not they wait as long as they can for something to turn up. The exceptions being Heath, effectively unable to govern due to labour relations, May thinking she could get a big majority (and then didn't) and Johnson because Parliament was descending into farce.Top
Many former Prime ministers would have done different things to Sunak and might have made a better fist of the job than he has. I don't think any of them would have held an election early when the polls didn't state a likely victory.
On the back of your post perhaps @TopDog is really "BigDog".
JUST IN: An extraordinary filing from Jack Smith tonight that is almost incredulous at how legally incorrect Judge Cannon's jury instruction scenarios are re: Trump's claim that he designted reams of classified info as "personal" on the way out of the WH. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1775370773705687271
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
pathetic
Not at all. Very necessary for everyone. In my experience it is very brief and takes far less time than the wokehunters devote to complaining about it.
Though the concept suffers from the problem of infinite regress. What unconscious bias is affecting the person who uses the term 'wokehunter'? What unconscious bias makes some people tend towards liking and approving 'unconscious bias' training?
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
The simple answers are
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
Thanks. I am not up to speed. Which legislation requires employers to require this?
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Me too, but who's saying that?
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
Just so. Me too.
The problem here is perhaps that those designing, administering and reviewing the results of such courses imagine that they are somehow immune to their own particular biases.
I simultaneously have some sympathy with Casino, and think that he seriously overreacts to what is a relatively minor irritation.
Mm. It's a fair point to raise, your first para, but certainly the courses I did seemed reasonably open-ended to the degree that the only implicit bias was that there was a potential problem which needed to be dealt with - edit: actually, it was fairly explicit!
The other point that might be made is that we are all vulnerable - so even if some HR procedures are of no value to us personally others might well be. Consider, for instance, unconscious bias against the older employee. Even *conscious* bias was perfectly legal until quite recently. So new employees need to understand the situation. And so on.
Rather than “bias” it can just be accidental ignorance which would be fairer as less accusatory. For example had my eyes opened to a form of unconscious ignorance on here yesterday. There was a link to an article about the number of pregnancies in Texas resulting from rape since Roe v wade was squashed.
I looked at the figure, think it was 26,000, and thought that’s got to be absolute bullshit. 26,000 women pregnant from rapes must mean that significantly higher numbers were raped which just can’t be true.
I looked at the population of Texas and thought it’s below half of the UK so that would mean there must be double maybe in UK so I looked up UK stats.
I just couldn’t believe that many women are raped each year. Seriously staggered. I thought it was a couple of thousand, which would be grim enough but the figures are huge.
So I learnt something that countered my beliefs which might have coloured my judgement on issues and arguments. I didn’t have a bias in any way but I just didn’t know.
So if we are trying to “improve” people then maybe best to come at it from an enlightening angle rather than a hectoring angle.
I was startled by that too at the same time - but mentally thought, start with one per cent of women being raped a year, which sounds about right as an order of magnitude, more so than 0.1 per cent, and that is [edit] not too far off ten times the number of pregnancies reported.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain. If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
A question worth asking is: does Sunak have the ability to run a halfway competent election campaign?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
It's a possibility that has been little mentioned, LP, but I agree with you.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
In terms of whether Sunak will have a good campaign the evidence stacks up as follows.
BAD CAMPAIGN Poor judgement. Comes across as insincere. Uncanny valley in interviews with the public. Appeared to just give up on recent by-elections.
GOOD CAMPAIGN Uxbridge by-election shows that if they can find a wedge issue they can exploit it.
Check out the swing in Uxbridge, and it was a wedge issue of the moment.
The swing in Uxbridge was 6.7%. The swing in Selby and Aintsy, on the same day, was 23.7%.
Obviously they would need to find a different issue to be the wedge, and it would have to have widespread applicability, but when they did have such an issue they were able to use it effectively to create a massive difference in the swing against them.
If the Tories had been complete no-hopers then they'd have contrived to bungle that campaign and also lose Uxbridge.
The US warned Russia on 6 March that Crocus City Hall was a potential terrorist target. Both have confirmed it. That was the day before the US warned its citizens to avoid large gatherings. This makes a scenario similar to the 1999 Moscow apartment block bombings improbable, albeit not impossible.
Meanwhile, this is the new normal in Europe. It should not be accepted as such.
In March alone, Russian terrorists used over 400 missiles of various types, 600 "Shahed" drones, and over 3,000 guided aerial bombs against Ukraine.
This terror is wreaking havoc on cities and villages throughout Ukraine, and Russia is particularly relentless in bombarding frontline and border areas.
Our city of over a million people, Kharkiv, has been subjected to missile and drone strikes since the full-scale war began. Recently, Russian terrorists also began to use aerial bombs against Kharkiv. The city sees daily humiliation and pain, as well as daily losses. Critical infrastructure has been destroyed, and ordinary residential buildings are being demolished on a daily basis.
None of this will be possible when Ukraine receives reliable air defense systems capable of saving lives and restoring security to our cities. "Patriots" in the hands of Ukrainians have demonstrated that all forms of Russian terror can be defeated.
Well he’s not wrong, Patriot is a bloody good air defence system.
Now come on NATO countries, and send everything they can get their hands on to defend Kharkiv, a city the size of Manchester that’s seeing daily bombings worse then the IRA ever did to the place.
Labour should not make much effort in seats where the Lib Dems are second to the Tories .
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
These things can usually be done best with a nod and a wink. I can certainly remember telling a Labour Candidate why I was voting LD in Guildford, and he said 'That's right, but don't tell anyone I said that.'
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
Labour are a bit thick that they haven't cottoned on that FPTP is not their friend. What is it? FPTP has delivered circa 25 years of Labour Governments in the last 75
In 1945, 1966, 1997 and 2001 and 2005 and on current polls FPTP was/is Labour's friend delivering big majorities. In 2017 FPTP got Corbyn just 60 odd seats from a majority.
Corbynites often tend to oppose PR on the basis that the road to socialism does not lie in post election coalition governments with the Liberal Democrats. It was always the Roy Jenkins Social Democrats and LDs who were most in favour of PR (along with the Greens now and Reform)
My firm has just launched mandatory unconscious bias training - the overview cites BLM and a commitment to "systemic change" and includes a training tool that will assess my bias in gender, race and social mobility.
I must complete it by the end of June.
Approach it with an open mind. You might even find it interesting and useful.
It's a lot of Woke bollocks. It won't make a smidgen of a difference to anything.
But, we keep being told by the likes of you that such things don't exist. Now, you'll pivot seamlessly to "what's the problem?" and "it will do you good".
Watch.
That’s the same tactic they use with immigration
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Yet immigration has gone up since Brexit. Who lied to you on that one?
Comments
And who gets to decide who shall have which unconscious bias trained out of them? The question: Who? Whom? matters greatly here.
Anyway, I must work now.
Or as the Church of England oath of obedience puts it,
I, A B, do swear by Almighty God that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Lord Bishop of C and his successors in all things lawful and honest: So help me God...
The point about unconscious bias is it's not the individual's fault (it's largely the environment you were raised in) and there's not that much you can do about it except be aware of it.
(a) the complainants keep calling X and Y woke, ergo they are indeed wokehunting *in their own perception*, and that is am objective statement. Think of my tortoise copulating with a slipper, or trying to. It is a pretty fair statement to say that he was feeling randy, even if the object is not always what that same observer might think very sensible.
(b) again an objective criterion which breaks the regress: it's the employer who requires it, as a result of legislation by HM Goverment (which has been partly or wholly Conservative-run for 14 years or so).
In preparation I'd suggest a read of 'The End of the World is Flat' by Simon Edge.
For what it's worth, I think @Heathener's right on this point.
I am wary of anyone who suggests that they can evaluate their own unconscious bias, as here, but possibly others need a bit of help.
Party 2019 Votes 2019 Seats Pred Votes Low Seats Pred Seat High Seats
CON 44.7% 376 23.6% 32 90 214
LAB 33.0% 197 43.3% 340 459 536
LIB 11.8% 8 10.2% 20 49 61
Reform 2.1% 0 12.1% 0 0 22
Green 2.8% 1 5.5% 0 2 4
SNP 4.0% 48 3.5% 10 28 44
I’ve always founds the trainings comic. The fraud training that can be summed up as “In the multi choice test, do you pick Committing The Obvious Fraud?”… all the others are the same.
No actual knowledge imparted.
My experience is: I was pretty sure I didn't have unconscious bias before I did a course; after it I am sure that: a) I do have some, b) so does everyone else, c) it's not my (or their) fault, d) I can't really change it, but e) I can be aware of it and recognise how it might affect my decisions.
The simplified table....
Party Pred Votes Pred Seats
CON 23.6% 90
LAB 43.3% 459
LIB 10.2 49
Refor 12.1% 0
Green 5.5% 2
SNP 3.5% 28
No-one can evaluate unconscious bias. There are various training programmes to check for it and give some suggestions. Found it useful myself. As a result, much more sympathetic to modern ways of doing interviews, and so on, which help ensure one isn't missing stuff.
EC doesn't take account of swingback and tactical voting. Both are likely, neither is certain.
If you get swingback but little tactical voting then it ain't so bad for the Blue Team, but if you get tactical voting and no swingback, even 32 might be a bit on the high side.
I stress that this is not probable, but it certainly ain't impossible.
It's due to the idea that companies are liable for stuff. The problem is the implementation.
Oh, and Health and Safety is vital - the lessons there are written in blood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmDLSHLWcIE
https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1775272762409721895
He might be a genius at running engineering businesses, but he's a clueless idiot when it comes to politics.
Put simply, the length of a parliamentary term is not an independent variable - and, of course, there are plenty of other important variables in the mix.
- May could easily have lost in 2017 had the manifesto been published a few days earlier;
- 2019 could have resulted in any number of outcomes depending on when and how it had been called, who the leaders had been at the time, the Tories' and Brexit Party's attitudes towards Brexit and each other, and so on;
- 1983/4 would have been a very different election without the happenstance of the Falklands (and its outcome, which was not preordained);
- 2005 could have been quite different had the Hutton Inquiry concluded (as it well might) that Blair did mislead parliament on the case for the war in Iraq;
and so on.
PMs will always seek to call an election based on:
1. Whether they think they can win at that time;
2. Whether they think a more optimal moment will come later, within the limits of the parliament.
3. The balance of risks that things for them will improve versus get worse.
Obviously, any or all of these judgments can be wrong and the three factors have to be balanced, rather like a cricket captain judging when (or in that case, if) to declare, balancing runs in the bank against time, weather, fatigue and the quality of the opposition.
I can see the objective argument that Sunak's best chance was this May, now gone. But had he gone with it, he would still likely have led his party to a crushing defeat - and it would be precious little consolation to argue "but it would have been even worse after another 6 months of my leadership", which is in any case an impossible case to argue with any self-respect.
Since it is an immutable law that railways in the U.K. must cost £1bn per mile or something, what about Bus/Coach roads?
With the advent of electric vehicles…. Hmmmmm
(Although the article is dated 1st April so perhaps he meant it as a joke.)
More seriously, though, why are there still some in the opposition parties who haven't learned that if they fight amongst themselves it will simply lead to more Tories clinging onto their seats?
It's possible the Tories will overall run a better campaign than Labour and gain some ground as a result. There might well be competent people in the background.
But it wouldn't surprise me to see the wheels come off a Sunak-led election campaign. What happens if your campaign is a Theresa May style disaster, but you start the campaign 20 points behind rather than 20 points ahead? We might find out.
Never heard of you, but great article!
Question: which one of these do you think is a bricklayer.
Absurd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjONM1919rQ
FPTP duopoly mindset.
I simultaneously have some sympathy with Casino, and think that he seriously overreacts to what is a relatively minor irritation.
For the Conservatives its a majority or bust. And if they know they won't get a majority then its bust.
But for the Tories to be down in the 30s means losing a *lot* of seats where neither Labour nor the Lib Dems have much local data or organisation (though nor do the Tories, in a lot of cases), and both are starting *far* behind. It could happen but it'd need a vote split something like 45 / 19 / 10 / 18.
I can't speak for the entire liberal -left but perhaps we think assimilating as much evidence and making judgement calls on the back of that evidence is healthy.
Your view is; some bastard is trying to brainwash me, which I suspect is a wholly false narrative.
They could be accused of being overly confident and assuming this poll lead will hold up . If the Tories close the gap then tactical voting is more important .
The number one priority is to remove the Tories .
Labour and the Lib Dems need to come to an arrangement.
The courses I did ranged from the utterly banal and useless at one end, to the genuinely eye-opening, 'I need to re-think' at the other end, with many in the middle. But enough of them were good enough to have an impact on my attitudes and practice at work to make them worthwhile, overall.
As a side note, my experience was that online training packages were generally significantly more banal than in-person, group training, with few exceptions.
It's gaming the system, but when you have a crap system, what are you supposed to do?
The other point that might be made is that we are all vulnerable - so even if some HR procedures are of no value to us personally others might well be. Consider, for instance, unconscious bias against the older employee. Even *conscious* bias was perfectly legal until quite recently. So new employees need to understand the situation. And so on.
If Labour (as per that article) have started to look with eager eyes on the very deep targets (coming from a poor third with mid-teens scores on the previous notionals and minimal local government presence), then they will clash with Lib Dem higher targets (the example given is around a top 20 LD target and around a 208 Labour target, and one I know very intimately).
The Tories will certainly be hoping to hold on through the middle on a seat they might have nearly given up on before.
Who would you consider best placed in a seat with:
Previous notionals of Con 50, LD 31, Lab 16
County Council representation of Con 5, LD 5, Green 1 (0 Lab)
District Council of Con 1, LD 20, Lab 3, Green 3
And where the LDs have been working it hard since 2019 and Labour have only just started?
And Labour has a long-standing policy of twinning safe and unwinnable constituencies with marginals and targets. Activists in seats where the Lib Dems are the main challengers will be sent to other constituencies where Labour's prospect are brighter.
I work for a Council run school. I haven't, and am not aware of anyone else having unconscious bias training.
In fact, I haven't had any equality nor diversity training in the two years I've worked there. Safeguarding, yes.
Starmer isn't charismatic, but he is competent, and he may well come across better in a campaign that allows people to get to know him better. I thought Sunak was a good pick at the time, but he's surprised on the downside since taking office. If that continues through a GE campaign, Conservative Party Central Office has a problem.
How many have that?
In this part of the red wall it feels as if the Torys and RefUK are going to sink into the abyss together, still eating each other like a double ouroboros.
I'm sure @TSE has a suitable, similar Greek myth he can recount.
Pre opening of floodgates
“There will only be 13,000 A8 immigrants, no big deal”
Turns out there are about 3 million and that’s undermined job security and held wages down at the bottom end
“It’s vital for the economy, you EUracist”
Which is a pretty undemocratic concept, IMO.
2. It's also illustration of mass white-collar overemployment since the onset of widespread computerisation about 40 years ago.
1 can go on. 2 can't.
Corbynites often tend to oppose PR on the basis that the road to socialism does not lie in post election coalition governments with the Liberal Democrats. It was always the Roy Jenkins Social Democrats and LDs who were most in favour of PR (along with the Greens now and Reform)
Is it true that "for the Tories to be down in the 30s means losing a *lot* of seats where neither Labour nor the Lib Dems have much local data or organisation"?
I live in a classic Blue Wall seat: on paper among the Tories' 50 safest. Since 2019, the Tory vote has collapsed in local elections, and our Parish, District and County councils are now dominated by anti-Tories. Whether they can break through to take the Parliamentary seat is debateable: the anti-Tory vote is split between LDs, Lab and Greens and there's not a shred of evidence Reform has any local following, so there's a depressingly high chance the much-maligned local Tory will survive.
But what's absolutely NOT true is that the LDs lack data or organisation. Unlike either Lab or Tories, the LDs have both everywhere in the Westminster seat- and their activists are fit enough to organise the less fit into backroom tasks, while no Tory has been seen canvassing, telling or pumping out leaflets for at least 7 years. And in the naturally Labour-leaning parts of the Parliamentary constituency, Labour has similar campaigning strength..
Over the past 20 years, in this bit of the Blue Wall we've seen two profound political changes. The Tories' traditional role as social backdrop to the area has disappeared. And with it, the Tories' ability to understand the mentality of this bit of Middle England. Here at least (and OK, the area's particular uniqueness is the astronomic proportion of the electorate with postgraduate degrees) it's the anti-Tories who understand this - and the Tories who still live (for their few remaining years) in the forelock-tugging 1950s
My courses focus on legislation, regulation,
and obligations to the above. Compliance with for example, the Equalities Act 2010 , Equal Pay Act 1970, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and GDPR.
Trouble is, that was predicated on the Conservatives polling in the mid thirties. That's rather been overtaken by events. There probably is now a large group of seats where, left to their own devices, voters will catapult Labour from third to first. Galling if you are a Lib Dem, but them's the breaks.
It should not be accepted as such.
In March alone, Russian terrorists used over 400 missiles of various types, 600 "Shahed" drones, and over 3,000 guided aerial bombs against Ukraine.
This terror is wreaking havoc on cities and villages throughout Ukraine, and Russia is particularly relentless in bombarding frontline and border areas.
Our city of over a million people, Kharkiv, has been subjected to missile and drone strikes since the full-scale war began. Recently, Russian terrorists also began to use aerial bombs against Kharkiv. The city sees daily humiliation and pain, as well as daily losses. Critical infrastructure has been destroyed, and ordinary residential buildings are being demolished on a daily basis.
None of this will be possible when Ukraine receives reliable air defense systems capable of saving lives and restoring security to our cities. "Patriots" in the hands of Ukrainians have demonstrated that all forms of Russian terror can be defeated.
This is what our Kharkiv, as well as all of our cities and communities, require right now, as Russian strikes threaten their lives.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1775428667532775431
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/blackrock-ceo-slammed-force-behaviors-dei-initiatives
Of course, done properly courses around discrimination can be incredibly useful, yet most of them are anything but.
BAD CAMPAIGN
Poor judgement.
Comes across as insincere.
Uncanny valley in interviews with the public.
Appeared to just give up on recent by-elections.
GOOD CAMPAIGN
Uxbridge by-election shows that if they can find a wedge issue they can exploit it.
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1775370773705687271
Lawyers might enjoy reading the entire thing.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.428.0_1.pdf
The rest of us have an opportunity to learn what is a writ of mandamus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus#Federal_courts
I looked at the figure, think it was 26,000, and thought that’s got to be absolute bullshit. 26,000 women pregnant from rapes must mean that significantly higher numbers were raped which just can’t be true.
I looked at the population of Texas and thought it’s below half of the UK so that would mean there must be double maybe in UK so I looked up UK stats.
I just couldn’t believe that many women are raped each year. Seriously staggered. I thought it was a couple of thousand, which would be grim enough but the figures are huge.
So I learnt something that countered my beliefs which might have coloured my judgement on issues and arguments. I didn’t have a bias in any way but I just didn’t know.
So if we are trying to “improve” people then maybe best to come at it from an enlightening angle rather than a hectoring angle.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13265155/king-charles-opens-balmoral-doors-public-tickets-cost.html
Many former Prime ministers would have done different things to Sunak and might have made a better fist of the job than he has. I don't think any of them would have held an election early when the polls didn't state a likely victory.
Can't remember ever being hectored, though ...
The swing in Selby and Aintsy, on the same day, was 23.7%.
Obviously they would need to find a different issue to be the wedge, and it would have to have widespread applicability, but when they did have such an issue they were able to use it effectively to create a massive difference in the swing against them.
If the Tories had been complete no-hopers then they'd have contrived to bungle that campaign and also lose Uxbridge.
Now come on NATO countries, and send everything they can get their hands on to defend Kharkiv, a city the size of Manchester that’s seeing daily bombings worse then the IRA ever did to the place.