Starmer’s successor looks set to be one of these three – politicalbetting.com

moonshine said:

MrEd said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.

If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.

Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.

No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.

What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.

Mermaids gets everywhere, doesn't it?

On @TOPPING’s question, there is a few problems that can arise from his scenario:

1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x

Damn didn’t finish

2. If you have a positive discrimination policy, there is always the question of “did they only get the job because they were x?”.

I’m Topping’s scenario, it would be much better just to toss a coin.

Not at all. Change needs to happen. Once in the job people can prove themselves. And no one has given a tuppenny fuck historically if someone in the job who is not a minority only got the job on that basis.

Just as a question, which categories would you say change needs to happen?

Certainly, when I worked in Banking, there were many - and probably disproportionately so - from South Asian heritages.

As for women, there were certainly no shortage. The real difference always came when women went off to have kids and, more often than not, wanted to work 4 day weeks.

Now, it’s true that weren’t that many Black candidates but even that is skewed. Again, there were a fair few Black African-descent colleagues. The gap was in Black Caribbean descent individuals, at least in the front office.

We have had a role open half a year. Quite niche, difficult to find candidates. Interviewed two today that interviewed really well and both suitably qualified. But the hiring manager says with a sigh, “a shame as it will be hard to get either signed off as they are both white males”.

I mean what the fucking buggery is the world coming to.

That's a rather astounding thing for someone to say, even if they thought it. I cannot even picture it.

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

Why should one expect every profession to reflect the make up of society at large?

When they are making laws for society at large, frankly or even serving them coffee, then I think they absolutely should do.

You were an army officer. Should the army operate on the basis that 51% of its officer class must be be female, 15% from ethnic minorities, 93% from State schools etc.?

I struggle to see how the army would be worse if so. The entry requirements are the entry requirements.

And I've got to believe that we are close to that for those last two (ethnic minorities and state schools, although it probably repays some googling).

Edit: 12.9% ethnic minorities in the army it seems from Google.

And had you been turned down, because your particular social group had reached its quota for that year, would you consider that fair?

Edit: I do note that in 2019 49% of officer cadets came from private schools, compared to 7% of the population.

Where did you get that figure from? It is misleading at best: 7% of the school age population are at private schools, but as many mix and match the proportion that spend some time at a private school is over double: 18% of sixth-formers are at an independent school according to wiki.

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I await to see the male-only shortlists for primary school teachers.

Would you like to see that?

Personally, no (you can’t say one form of positive discrimination is wrong and another is right) but something needs to be done in that area.

Why can't one discriminate between different types of discrimination? I gave an example earlier.

Top uni has 100 places and 20,000 applicants all expecting to get the AAA criteria and with school reports saying they'd do great on the courses offered. The applicants are split 50/50 state v private school but the uni wants to favour state applicants and so splits its offers 75/25.

That's a world away from (eg) a merchant bank going, "We need a new CFO, let's get a black woman with a gammy leg, tick 3 boxes in one go, what?"

Exaggerating to make the point there obviously. But the point is surely right. You CAN be in favour of one form of positive discrimination but not another. Course you can.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

Why should one expect every profession to reflect the make up of society at large?

When they are making laws for society at large, frankly or even serving them coffee, then I think they absolutely should do.

You were an army officer. Should the army operate on the basis that 51% of its officer class must be be female, 15% from ethnic minorities, 93% from State schools etc.?

I struggle to see how the army would be worse if so. The entry requirements are the entry requirements.

And I've got to believe that we are close to that for those last two (ethnic minorities and state schools, although it probably repays some googling).

Edit: 12.9% ethnic minorities in the army it seems from Google.

And had you been turned down, because your particular social group had reached its quota for that year, would you consider that fair?

Edit: I do note that in 2019 49% of officer cadets came from private schools, compared to 7% of the population.

Where did you get that figure from? It is misleading at best: 7% of the school age population are at private schools, but as many mix and match the proportion that spend some time at a private school is over double: 18% of sixth-formers are at an independent school according to wiki.

Fair point. Btu, certainly, the army officer class is disproportionately drawn from the privately educated.

Malmesbury said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Password, I disagree with that entirely.

Men and women are into different things, to a greater or lesser extent. This is natural and normal. Evolutionarily, we're pretty much still at caveman level. Having different interests isn't proof of bias, the idea that all being equal means everyone having identical interests is just wrong.

The fascinating thing is how peer pressure works into this.

My daughters loved technical Lego, until they were old enough to succumb to the peer group pressure to like Lego Friends.

In my job (IT) it is common for women to relate experiences of the... suggestions from other women to go for non-IT careers. Being a geek is not seen as "womanly" by many other women - though, interestingly, doctor now is. As is lawyer....

I suspect the reaction of their male peers might also prevent some men from pursuing a career in primary education or nursing.

kinabalu said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I await to see the male-only shortlists for primary school teachers.

Would you like to see that?

Personally, no (you can’t say one form of positive discrimination is wrong and another is right) but something needs to be done in that area.

Why can't one discriminate between different types of discrimination? I gave an example earlier.

Top uni has 100 places and 20,000 applicants all expecting to get the AAA criteria and with school reports saying they'd do great on the courses offered. The applicants are split 50/50 state v private school but the uni wants to favour state applicants and so splits its offers 75/25.

That's a world away from (eg) a merchant bank going, "We need a new CFO, let's get a black woman with a gammy leg, tick 3 boxes in one go, what?"

Exaggerating to make the point there obviously. But the point is surely right. You CAN be in favour of one form of positive discrimination but not another. Course you can.

I believe the Yes Minister suggestion was Black Welsh woman disabled trades activist, so I guess this issue really has bumbled along.

Fysics_Teacher said:

MrEd said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. F, one shouldn't. It's a delinquent idea.

Mr. Topping, you misunderstand. Children need male role models. With fewer fathers, because courts assume motherhood matters more than fatherhood, and relatively few male primary school teachers this is a severe absence and it's not good for children.

Edited extra bit: as an aside, this is an area where representation actually matters. But because it's mostly women employed as primary school teachers, that's seen as fine and dandy.

Back in the 1990s, I volunteered to help at a primary school in an inner-city area. The kids would call me “Miss” because they assumed that is how a primary teacher should be addressed. The teachers later asked if I would speak to the pupils at assembly because the children lacked male role models (don’t snigger).

I’ve occasionally been called Miss by Y7s in their first term (and once “mum”!)

I assume the Mum one immediately transferred schools.

kinabalu said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I await to see the male-only shortlists for primary school teachers.

Would you like to see that?

Personally, no (you can’t say one form of positive discrimination is wrong and another is right) but something needs to be done in that area.

Why can't one discriminate between different types of discrimination? I gave an example earlier.

Top uni has 100 places and 20,000 applicants all expecting to get the AAA criteria and with school reports saying they'd do great on the courses offered. The applicants are split 50/50 state v private school but the uni wants to favour state applicants and so splits its offers 75/25.

That's a world away from (eg) a merchant bank going, "We need a new CFO, let's get a black woman with a gammy leg, tick 3 boxes in one go, what?"

Exaggerating to make the point there obviously. But the point is surely right. You CAN be in favour of one form of positive discrimination but not another. Course you can.

If there's 20,000 applicants all getting AAA and only 100 places, that's a failure of the letter system that we use. Not all A's will be the same, but they're all treated the same.

In Victoria, Australia when I lived there the locals did a system called the VCE which ranked people based upon percentile. The top people in the state would get 99.95, the next would get 99.9, then 99.85 etc down in 0.05 increments down to a bottom percentile of 30 (since 30% wouldn't sit the VCE or wouldn't pass).

That way there'd only be about 4 or 5 people statewide getting the same grade, instead of letters and everyone getting an A. Plus grade inflation is impossible in a percentile ranking.

Universities then could set the cut-off for applications at an exact percentile to fill the spots rather than sifting through tens of thousands on the "same" grade.

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

moonshine said:

MrEd said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.

If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.

Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.

No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.

What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.

Mermaids gets everywhere, doesn't it?

On @TOPPING’s question, there is a few problems that can arise from his scenario:

1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x

Damn didn’t finish

2. If you have a positive discrimination policy, there is always the question of “did they only get the job because they were x?”.

I’m Topping’s scenario, it would be much better just to toss a coin.

Not at all. Change needs to happen. Once in the job people can prove themselves. And no one has given a tuppenny fuck historically if someone in the job who is not a minority only got the job on that basis.

Just as a question, which categories would you say change needs to happen?

Certainly, when I worked in Banking, there were many - and probably disproportionately so - from South Asian heritages.

As for women, there were certainly no shortage. The real difference always came when women went off to have kids and, more often than not, wanted to work 4 day weeks.

Now, it’s true that weren’t that many Black candidates but even that is skewed. Again, there were a fair few Black African-descent colleagues. The gap was in Black Caribbean descent individuals, at least in the front office.

We have had a role open half a year. Quite niche, difficult to find candidates. Interviewed two today that interviewed really well and both suitably qualified. But the hiring manager says with a sigh, “a shame as it will be hard to get either signed off as they are both white males”.

I mean what the fucking buggery is the world coming to.

That’s the issue. No one wants to be the one saying “let’s hire the white male.” In many organisations, it’s tantamount to career suicide (at least at non-senior levels - when it comes to the top posts, funnily enough they don’t care that much).

If you want to see where this leads to, look at the current crop of TV adverts. I’d say well over half feature Black actors and probably not far off two thirds. You can see what’s happening. The advertiser has told its agency “find me some black people!” so they can look socially aware. The agency has scurried off and found them. Individually, it makes sense. In totally, it means that the TV adverts are completely out of whack with the make up of the country.

Is that a source of huge concern to you?

As I have related previously, I am among those PB-ers who has done a stint at McDonalds for a holiday job. When I first started I had been working there for a couple of weeks (in Wembley) before I realised that I was the only white guy there. I remain untraumatised.

I've noticed the trend in advertising, it is almost comical now and I do not think that you are making an valid comparison. If I go to work somewhere where I am the only white person it is normally just a reflection of where the job is located. Adverts bear some kind of relationship to the demographics of society as a whole (if they are aimed at a broad target audience). If they are very out of kilter on ethnicity then it is noticeable. I suspect this is a temporary situation caused by everyone leaping on the same bandwagon. Over compensation to perceived historical prejudice for job appointments is potentially dangerous I think (as well as immoral).

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Its fantastic to see 2% of people in this country had Covid apparently in the last week, without the NHS collapsing. That's our best ever rate of people acquiring natural immunity isn't it?

Between vaccines and natural immunity we're going to be superbly placed to face the winter.

Yes, it's brilliant, assuming they weren't ill or very ill.

I assume you and your family are doing everything you can to go out and catch Covid so that you can contribute to the heroic national effort to reach natural immunity?

I got my vaccine and have been living my life, and my kids have been going to school etc, so yes.

Vaccines are the best way to get immunity. For anyone that can't or won't get a vaccine, there's one other way to get it.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Malmesbury said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Password, I disagree with that entirely.

Men and women are into different things, to a greater or lesser extent. This is natural and normal. Evolutionarily, we're pretty much still at caveman level. Having different interests isn't proof of bias, the idea that all being equal means everyone having identical interests is just wrong.

The fascinating thing is how peer pressure works into this.

My daughters loved technical Lego, until they were old enough to succumb to the peer group pressure to like Lego Friends.

In my job (IT) it is common for women to relate experiences of the... suggestions from other women to go for non-IT careers. Being a geek is not seen as "womanly" by many other women - though, interestingly, doctor now is. As is lawyer....

I suspect the reaction of their male peers might also prevent some men from pursuing a career in primary education or nursing.

Yes. I still recall from many years ago a friend who was a senior nurse. Someone asked him why he did nursing. He said that on his course, out of fifty, there were 2 gays guys, and the rest were women.

Which was his reason for doing nursing.....

NorthofStoke said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

moonshine said:

MrEd said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.

If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.

Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.

No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.

What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.

Mermaids gets everywhere, doesn't it?

On @TOPPING’s question, there is a few problems that can arise from his scenario:

1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x

Damn didn’t finish

2. If you have a positive discrimination policy, there is always the question of “did they only get the job because they were x?”.

I’m Topping’s scenario, it would be much better just to toss a coin.

Not at all. Change needs to happen. Once in the job people can prove themselves. And no one has given a tuppenny fuck historically if someone in the job who is not a minority only got the job on that basis.

Just as a question, which categories would you say change needs to happen?

Certainly, when I worked in Banking, there were many - and probably disproportionately so - from South Asian heritages.

As for women, there were certainly no shortage. The real difference always came when women went off to have kids and, more often than not, wanted to work 4 day weeks.

Now, it’s true that weren’t that many Black candidates but even that is skewed. Again, there were a fair few Black African-descent colleagues. The gap was in Black Caribbean descent individuals, at least in the front office.

We have had a role open half a year. Quite niche, difficult to find candidates. Interviewed two today that interviewed really well and both suitably qualified. But the hiring manager says with a sigh, “a shame as it will be hard to get either signed off as they are both white males”.

I mean what the fucking buggery is the world coming to.

That’s the issue. No one wants to be the one saying “let’s hire the white male.” In many organisations, it’s tantamount to career suicide (at least at non-senior levels - when it comes to the top posts, funnily enough they don’t care that much).

If you want to see where this leads to, look at the current crop of TV adverts. I’d say well over half feature Black actors and probably not far off two thirds. You can see what’s happening. The advertiser has told its agency “find me some black people!” so they can look socially aware. The agency has scurried off and found them. Individually, it makes sense. In totally, it means that the TV adverts are completely out of whack with the make up of the country.

Is that a source of huge concern to you?

As I have related previously, I am among those PB-ers who has done a stint at McDonalds for a holiday job. When I first started I had been working there for a couple of weeks (in Wembley) before I realised that I was the only white guy there. I remain untraumatised.

I've noticed the trend in advertising, it is almost comical now and I don not think that you are making an invalid comparison. If I go to work somewhere where I am the only white person it is normally just a reflection of where the job is located. Adverts bear some kind of relationship to the demographics of society as a whole (if they are aimed at a broad target audience). If they are very out of kilter on ethnicity then it is noticeable. I suspect this is a temporary situation caused by everyone leaping on the same bandwagon. Over compensation to perceived historical prejudice for job appointments is potentially dangerous I think (as well as immoral).

Adverts being diverse has been a gag for a long time, I've seen enough american shows joking about Bennetton ads for decades to know that.

43,467 and 186 deaths

kinabalu said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Morris_Dancer said:

I await to see the male-only shortlists for primary school teachers.

Would you like to see that?

Personally, no (you can’t say one form of positive discrimination is wrong and another is right) but something needs to be done in that area.

Why can't one discriminate between different types of discrimination? I gave an example earlier.

Top uni has 100 places and 20,000 applicants all expecting to get the AAA criteria and with school reports saying they'd do great on the courses offered. The applicants are split 50/50 state v private school but the uni wants to favour state applicants and so splits its offers 75/25.

That's a world away from (eg) a merchant bank going, "We need a new CFO, let's get a black woman with a gammy leg, tick 3 boxes in one go, what?"

Exaggerating to make the point there obviously. But the point is surely right. You CAN be in favour of one form of positive discrimination but not another. Course you can.

I'd agree in part, since one is considering not just grades, but also potential. But, in terms of assessing potential, I'd want more considerations to be taken into account than just privately educated v state educated.

Malmesbury said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Malmesbury said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Password, I disagree with that entirely.

Men and women are into different things, to a greater or lesser extent. This is natural and normal. Evolutionarily, we're pretty much still at caveman level. Having different interests isn't proof of bias, the idea that all being equal means everyone having identical interests is just wrong.

The fascinating thing is how peer pressure works into this.

My daughters loved technical Lego, until they were old enough to succumb to the peer group pressure to like Lego Friends.

In my job (IT) it is common for women to relate experiences of the... suggestions from other women to go for non-IT careers. Being a geek is not seen as "womanly" by many other women - though, interestingly, doctor now is. As is lawyer....

I suspect the reaction of their male peers might also prevent some men from pursuing a career in primary education or nursing.

Yes. I still recall from many years ago a friend who was a senior nurse. Someone asked him why he did nursing. He said that on his course, out of fifty, there were 2 gays guys, and the rest were women.

Which was his reason for doing nursing.....

I know of a similar story, from a guy who works as British Airways cabin crew.

NorthofStoke said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

moonshine said:

MrEd said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.

If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.

Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.

No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.

What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.

Mermaids gets everywhere, doesn't it?

On @TOPPING’s question, there is a few problems that can arise from his scenario:

1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x

Damn didn’t finish

2. If you have a positive discrimination policy, there is always the question of “did they only get the job because they were x?”.

I’m Topping’s scenario, it would be much better just to toss a coin.

Not at all. Change needs to happen. Once in the job people can prove themselves. And no one has given a tuppenny fuck historically if someone in the job who is not a minority only got the job on that basis.

Just as a question, which categories would you say change needs to happen?

Certainly, when I worked in Banking, there were many - and probably disproportionately so - from South Asian heritages.

As for women, there were certainly no shortage. The real difference always came when women went off to have kids and, more often than not, wanted to work 4 day weeks.

Now, it’s true that weren’t that many Black candidates but even that is skewed. Again, there were a fair few Black African-descent colleagues. The gap was in Black Caribbean descent individuals, at least in the front office.

We have had a role open half a year. Quite niche, difficult to find candidates. Interviewed two today that interviewed really well and both suitably qualified. But the hiring manager says with a sigh, “a shame as it will be hard to get either signed off as they are both white males”.

I mean what the fucking buggery is the world coming to.

That’s the issue. No one wants to be the one saying “let’s hire the white male.” In many organisations, it’s tantamount to career suicide (at least at non-senior levels - when it comes to the top posts, funnily enough they don’t care that much).

If you want to see where this leads to, look at the current crop of TV adverts. I’d say well over half feature Black actors and probably not far off two thirds. You can see what’s happening. The advertiser has told its agency “find me some black people!” so they can look socially aware. The agency has scurried off and found them. Individually, it makes sense. In totally, it means that the TV adverts are completely out of whack with the make up of the country.

Is that a source of huge concern to you?

As I have related previously, I am among those PB-ers who has done a stint at McDonalds for a holiday job. When I first started I had been working there for a couple of weeks (in Wembley) before I realised that I was the only white guy there. I remain untraumatised.

I've noticed the trend in advertising, it is almost comical now and I do not think that you are making an valid comparison. If I go to work somewhere where I am the only white person it is normally just a reflection of where the job is located. Adverts bear some kind of relationship to the demographics of society as a whole (if they are aimed at a broad target audience). If they are very out of kilter on ethnicity then it is noticeable. I suspect this is a temporary situation caused by everyone leaping on the same bandwagon. Over compensation to perceived historical prejudice for job appointments is potentially dangerous I think (as well as immoral).

No one is being woke with adverts. Everyone is being commercially aware. If it suits XYZ Corp's advert to have over-representation of one demographic that is because it "plays well" in terms of potential customers. Potential customers want to deal with a company that, for example, is colour blind.

Look at @rcs1000's example. They are hiring female software engineers because it benefits them commercially.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Keir is clearly the best candidate for PM Labour has right now.

Looks like he'll be proven correct on COVID once again. Plan B now

Lol no he won't.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.

If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.

Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.

No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.

What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.

Mermaids gets everywhere, doesn't it?

On @TOPPING’s question, there is a few problems that can arise from his scenario:

1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x

Damn didn’t finish

2. If you have a positive discrimination policy, there is always the question of “did they only get the job because they were x?”.

I’m Topping’s scenario, it would be much better just to toss a coin.

Not at all. Change needs to happen. Once in the job people can prove themselves. And no one has given a tuppenny fuck historically if someone in the job who is not a minority only got the job on that basis.

Actually a lot of us have given a fuck historically about that and that's why we oppose such discrimination.

Simply saying "bad things happened in the past" isn't a good reason to do what you know to be bad today though either.

Either you believe sexism and racism is bad, or you don't.

You are drawing the line once the discrimination has happened. You are saying the minorities have suffered but now we must treat everyone fairly.

You are ignoring history and proceeding from the premise of inequality, thus baking it in for the future.

Yes I am unabashedly drawing the line. We must treat everyone fairly.

If there's issues with inequality then that should be tackled based upon need, not based upon discrimination. I don't think Sunak's kids will need discrimination in their favour because of "baked in" discrimination, do you? But other's might do regardless of race. If support is needed give it to whoever needs it, for whatever reason they need it.

I think this is the crucial point.

Let's look at America. Does anyone think that the Obamas' children will face as severe challenges as the children of white unemployed opium addicts living in small town West Virginia?

Your chances in life are determined by more than just your race, sex or sexual orientation.

With that being said, there are very real problems of racism in the United States. White police departments and black neighbourhoods stink of foreign occupation. I have little doubt that - no matter how talented they were - a talented black man would be effectively barred from rising to the top of a police department in much of the South.

As the police are the most visible arm of the State for most people, and have the legal monopoly on violence, this is - I would submit - a B.F.D, that does far more to hammer the life chances of African Americans than anything else.

Edit to add: I heard a story about a black lawyer in New York from a (lawyer) friend of mine here. Said black lawyer was arrested on suspicion of being someone else. The case got all the way to court with the police refusing to believe he was who he said he was, and it was only when the Prosecutor got up and said "Judge, I was at Harvard Law School with the Defendent, and he is not who the police say he is" that the case was dropped. It was a genuinely shocking story.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1454044688432910338

We have lost control, when is the Government going to get a grip

If you want to do Plan B, go ahead and enjoy yourself. The rest of us don't have to.

williamglenn said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1454044688432910338

We have lost control, when is the Government going to get a grip

Don't start this again. Cases are down on last week and our booster programme is powering ahead.

To be fair, we need to be slightly ahead of the curve with boosters because we were first to vaccinate.

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Password, I disagree with that entirely.

Men and women are into different things, to a greater or lesser extent. This is natural and normal. Evolutionarily, we're pretty much still at caveman level. Having different interests isn't proof of bias, the idea that all being equal means everyone having identical interests is just wrong.

The fascinating thing is how peer pressure works into this.

My daughters loved technical Lego, until they were old enough to succumb to the peer group pressure to like Lego Friends.

In my job (IT) it is common for women to relate experiences of the... suggestions from other women to go for non-IT careers. Being a geek is not seen as "womanly" by many other women - though, interestingly, doctor now is. As is lawyer....

To get onto one of my hobby horses, liking sci fi and fantasy was similar. But thankfully there are now loads more female authors of both dispelling that notion that. Though even I'd still say the biggest nerds are likelier to be men.

2014 advert from American mobile phone-slingers Verizon on the theme of negative peer pressure on girlies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yND9hDpPwYA

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.

If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.

Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.

No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.

What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.

Mermaids gets everywhere, doesn't it?

On @TOPPING’s question, there is a few problems that can arise from his scenario:

1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x

Damn didn’t finish

2. If you have a positive discrimination policy, there is always the question of “did they only get the job because they were x?”.

I’m Topping’s scenario, it would be much better just to toss a coin.

Not at all. Change needs to happen. Once in the job people can prove themselves. And no one has given a tuppenny fuck historically if someone in the job who is not a minority only got the job on that basis.

Actually a lot of us have given a fuck historically about that and that's why we oppose such discrimination.

Simply saying "bad things happened in the past" isn't a good reason to do what you know to be bad today though either.

Either you believe sexism and racism is bad, or you don't.

You are drawing the line once the discrimination has happened. You are saying the minorities have suffered but now we must treat everyone fairly.

You are ignoring history and proceeding from the premise of inequality, thus baking it in for the future.

Yes I am unabashedly drawing the line. We must treat everyone fairly.

If there's issues with inequality then that should be tackled based upon need, not based upon discrimination. I don't think Sunak's kids will need discrimination in their favour because of "baked in" discrimination, do you? But other's might do regardless of race. If support is needed give it to whoever needs it, for whatever reason they need it.

I think this is the crucial point.

Let's look at America. Does anyone think that the Obamas' children will face as severe challenges as the children of white unemployed opium addicts living in small town West Virginia?

Your chances in life are determined by more than just your race, sex or sexual orientation.

With that being said, there are very real problems of racism in the United States. White police departments and black neighbourhoods stink of foreign occupation. I have little doubt that - no matter how talented they were - a talented black man would be effectively barred from rising to the top of a police department in much of the South.

As the police are the most visible arm of the State for most people, and have the legal monopoly on violence, this is - I would submit - a B.F.D, that does far more to hammer the life chances of African Americans than anything else.

Edit to add: I heard a story about a black lawyer in New York from a (lawyer) friend of mine here. Said black lawyer was arrested on suspicion of being someone else. The case got all the way to court with the police refusing to believe he was who he said he was, and it was only when the Prosecutor got up and said "Judge, I was at Harvard Law School with the Defendent, and he is not who the police say he is" that the case was dropped. It was a genuinely shocking story.

One of the most disturbing features of US policing is that you have David Grossman (and others) training policemen to think of themselves as members of an army of occupation.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Mandatory masks on public transport, insane this is not a requirement already. Mask up on the train is surely common courtesy at this point

'At this point' being when cases are falling rapidly?
Masks are not a cost free measure. Masks on public transport will lead to more people driving, which is a) an inefficient use of resources and b) has an associated carbon cost.
And we will all get it at some stage anyway.

TOPPING said:

NorthofStoke said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

moonshine said:

MrEd said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.

If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.

Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.

No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.

What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.

Mermaids gets everywhere, doesn't it?

On @TOPPING’s question, there is a few problems that can arise from his scenario:

1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x

Damn didn’t finish

2. If you have a positive discrimination policy, there is always the question of “did they only get the job because they were x?”.

I’m Topping’s scenario, it would be much better just to toss a coin.

Not at all. Change needs to happen. Once in the job people can prove themselves. And no one has given a tuppenny fuck historically if someone in the job who is not a minority only got the job on that basis.

Just as a question, which categories would you say change needs to happen?

Certainly, when I worked in Banking, there were many - and probably disproportionately so - from South Asian heritages.

As for women, there were certainly no shortage. The real difference always came when women went off to have kids and, more often than not, wanted to work 4 day weeks.

Now, it’s true that weren’t that many Black candidates but even that is skewed. Again, there were a fair few Black African-descent colleagues. The gap was in Black Caribbean descent individuals, at least in the front office.

We have had a role open half a year. Quite niche, difficult to find candidates. Interviewed two today that interviewed really well and both suitably qualified. But the hiring manager says with a sigh, “a shame as it will be hard to get either signed off as they are both white males”.

I mean what the fucking buggery is the world coming to.

That’s the issue. No one wants to be the one saying “let’s hire the white male.” In many organisations, it’s tantamount to career suicide (at least at non-senior levels - when it comes to the top posts, funnily enough they don’t care that much).

If you want to see where this leads to, look at the current crop of TV adverts. I’d say well over half feature Black actors and probably not far off two thirds. You can see what’s happening. The advertiser has told its agency “find me some black people!” so they can look socially aware. The agency has scurried off and found them. Individually, it makes sense. In totally, it means that the TV adverts are completely out of whack with the make up of the country.

Is that a source of huge concern to you?

As I have related previously, I am among those PB-ers who has done a stint at McDonalds for a holiday job. When I first started I had been working there for a couple of weeks (in Wembley) before I realised that I was the only white guy there. I remain untraumatised.

I've noticed the trend in advertising, it is almost comical now and I do not think that you are making an valid comparison. If I go to work somewhere where I am the only white person it is normally just a reflection of where the job is located. Adverts bear some kind of relationship to the demographics of society as a whole (if they are aimed at a broad target audience). If they are very out of kilter on ethnicity then it is noticeable. I suspect this is a temporary situation caused by everyone leaping on the same bandwagon. Over compensation to perceived historical prejudice for job appointments is potentially dangerous I think (as well as immoral).

No one is being woke with adverts. Everyone is being commercially aware. If it suits XYZ Corp's advert to have over-representation of one demographic that is because it "plays well" in terms of potential customers. Potential customers want to deal with a company that, for example, is colour blind.

Look at @rcs1000's example. They are hiring female software engineers because it benefits them commercially.

I agree with the point about making a statement about being colour blind, hence the current statistical overshoot in reducing the number of white actors in adverts. I don't think all adverts are devoid of attempts at "wokeness", John Lewis's latest insurance effort springs to mind. Could be the result of miscalculating the ideological leanings of the target audience or a result of the enthusiasms of the creative team.

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1454044688432910338

We have lost control, when is the Government going to get a grip

Don't start this again. Cases are down on last week and our booster programme is powering ahead.

To be fair, we need to be slightly ahead of the curve with boosters because we were first to vaccinate.

That's fine, and if our boosters are not going as fast as they could/should then that is definitely something to raise, but I'd been getting the impression from some comments that we were just way behind on boosters compared to others.

Richard_Tyndall said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1454044688432910338

We have lost control, when is the Government going to get a grip

Given we haven't seen a massive increase in hospital admissions I would agree with PT and say that is really good news

Yes. It's like back in the early stages of the pandemic when we didn't know what the prevalence of infection was. The higher the rate of infection for a given level of hospitalization and death then the less dangerous the infection is, which is good news.

The vaccines have sufficiently reduced the severity of the virus that we can sustain a rate of infection of 2% without it overwhelming the hospitals. The more we vaccinate the better that gets.

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

MrEd said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Will the Labour membership vote for a woman? Every single woman who has stood for a membership vote for leader, has been beaten by every man in the contest.

Finally an admission from the right that status quo/traditional selection processes dont automatically pick the best person for the job. Hope that will be remembered for the next positive discrimination discussions, the Labour Party is a great example to use.

If the prior processes are not picking the right person for the job then the solution is to tackle the discrimination so that going forwards the best person is chosen.

"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination, it doesn't do that.

Yes of course, if you could magically get rid of all the discriminatory biases and processes in the real world that would be fantastic. Also magical, it ain't gonna happen. Human brains are built on using bias and pattern recognition very heavily, more than we use rationality.

No need for magic, just tackling the real issues.

"Positive discrimination" is no better at finding the right person for the job, if you're still discriminating against the people you were discriminating against then the 'right person' still suffers because they're being discriminated against. Promoting someone else from the same group because "they all look the same" to you isn't a fix.

What if the organisation has never had a minority C-level executive. And it interviews two candidates for one such role and they are exactly equal and one is from the minority whose inequality you want to address and one is from the prevailing majority.

Mermaids gets everywhere, doesn't it?

On @TOPPING’s question, there is a few problems that can arise from his scenario:

1. The losing candidate says “they only got it because they were x” causing resentment towards x

Damn didn’t finish

2. If you have a positive discrimination policy, there is always the question of “did they only get the job because they were x?”.

I’m Topping’s scenario, it would be much better just to toss a coin.

Not at all. Change needs to happen. Once in the job people can prove themselves. And no one has given a tuppenny fuck historically if someone in the job who is not a minority only got the job on that basis.

Actually a lot of us have given a fuck historically about that and that's why we oppose such discrimination.

Simply saying "bad things happened in the past" isn't a good reason to do what you know to be bad today though either.

Either you believe sexism and racism is bad, or you don't.

You are drawing the line once the discrimination has happened. You are saying the minorities have suffered but now we must treat everyone fairly.

You are ignoring history and proceeding from the premise of inequality, thus baking it in for the future.

Yes I am unabashedly drawing the line. We must treat everyone fairly.

If there's issues with inequality then that should be tackled based upon need, not based upon discrimination. I don't think Sunak's kids will need discrimination in their favour because of "baked in" discrimination, do you? But other's might do regardless of race. If support is needed give it to whoever needs it, for whatever reason they need it.

I think this is the crucial point.

Let's look at America. Does anyone think that the Obamas' children will face as severe challenges as the children of white unemployed opium addicts living in small town West Virginia?

Your chances in life are determined by more than just your race, sex or sexual orientation.

With that being said, there are very real problems of racism in the United States. White police departments and black neighbourhoods stink of foreign occupation. I have little doubt that - no matter how talented they were - a talented black man would be effectively barred from rising to the top of a police department in much of the South.

As the police are the most visible arm of the State for most people, and have the legal monopoly on violence, this is - I would submit - a B.F.D, that does far more to hammer the life chances of African Americans than anything else.

Edit to add: I heard a story about a black lawyer in New York from a (lawyer) friend of mine here. Said black lawyer was arrested on suspicion of being someone else. The case got all the way to court with the police refusing to believe he was who he said he was, and it was only when the Prosecutor got up and said "Judge, I was at Harvard Law School with the Defendent, and he is not who the police say he is" that the case was dropped. It was a genuinely shocking story.

One of the most disturbing features of US policing is that you have David Grossman (and others) training policemen to think of themselves as members of an army of occupation.

Time for my regular plug for FlintTown (Netflix). Gives a great insight into a police dept in Michigan. It doesn't cover racism but plenty of the dept are black as are the chiefs. No idea how typical it is across middle America.

Northstar said:

JBriskin3 said:

"The big question is when there will be a vacancy. I just wonder whether Starmer when surveying the political talent around him might decide that someone else is better equipped to defeat Boris."

It seems unlikely that SKS's ego would ever entertain these type of thoughts.

Earlier in the year there was on average a lot of ‘patience’ for Keir - a sense he was off to a perhaps unavoidably (due to Covid) slow start in chipping away at the govt lead, but that he was laying the foundations methodically. It feels like his (perfectly reasonable) absence for the budget might be one of those tipping points where the average view slides over to ‘not good enough’.

Given Labour doesn’t really do defenestrations, that means Keir may go into the next GE with that ‘not good enough’ as the settled view of his performance on all sides.

Brutal analysis for the (apparently non-existent?) SKS fans but it rings true to me.

williamglenn said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/MirrorBreaking_/status/1454044688432910338

We have lost control, when is the Government going to get a grip

Don't start this again. Cases are down on last week and our booster programme is powering ahead.

The latest graphs from ZOE paint a rather different picture

Cookie said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Mandatory masks on public transport, insane this is not a requirement already. Mask up on the train is surely common courtesy at this point

'At this point' being when cases are falling rapidly?
Masks are not a cost free measure. Masks on public transport will lead to more people driving, which is a) an inefficient use of resources and b) has an associated carbon cost.
And we will all get it at some stage anyway.

Mask or no mask is irrelevant to rail travellers going to the centres of big cities - driving is not really an option unless you have easy and free parking.

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

Why should one expect every profession to reflect the make up of society at large?

When they are making laws for society at large, frankly or even serving them coffee, then I think they absolutely should do.

You were an army officer. Should the army operate on the basis that 51% of its officer class must be be female, 15% from ethnic minorities, 93% from State schools etc.?

I struggle to see how the army would be worse if so. The entry requirements are the entry requirements.

And I've got to believe that we are close to that for those last two (ethnic minorities and state schools, although it probably repays some googling).

Edit: 12.9% ethnic minorities in the army it seems from Google.

And had you been turned down, because your particular social group had reached its quota for that year, would you consider that fair?

Edit: I do note that in 2019 49% of officer cadets came from private schools, compared to 7% of the population.

Yes we both saw that BBC article which I edited my post to reflect.

It is what it is. If they had said no more people from my social group then first I wouldn't have known and secondly the army would have come to represent far more closely society at large earlier. I can't see how that is a bad thing but neither can I go back in time to assess my reaction.

IMHO, it would be unfair for you to be prevented from pursuing a profession to which you were well-suited because you were deemed to come from a group which was, in aggregate, more privileged than the average. That takes into account neither your abilities, nor your individual circumstances.

In the hierarchy of unfairnesses that this world habitually metes out such an entry would be towards the bottom, I'd suggest. To put it in your compact sardonic style, "worst things happen at sea."

And if it leads to a rather greater reduction in a different and more unfair unfairness, it's surely worth considering. By which I mean let's not rule all this sort of thing out just because it sounds 'woke' or something. Making progress towards Levelling Up - in a meaningful non-noddy, non-Johnson sense - is hard enough without throwing away the tool of positive discrimination.

rcs1000 said:

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Password, I disagree with that entirely.

Men and women are into different things, to a greater or lesser extent. This is natural and normal. Evolutionarily, we're pretty much still at caveman level. Having different interests isn't proof of bias, the idea that all being equal means everyone having identical interests is just wrong.

The fascinating thing is how peer pressure works into this.

My daughters loved technical Lego, until they were old enough to succumb to the peer group pressure to like Lego Friends.

In my job (IT) it is common for women to relate experiences of the... suggestions from other women to go for non-IT careers. Being a geek is not seen as "womanly" by many other women - though, interestingly, doctor now is. As is lawyer....

So we have these hiring issues all the time, and I've always been of a @Philip_Thompson mindset - i.e. we want the best person for the job, irrespective of their physical atttributes.

My tech dev head said to me early on "I'd really like to make sure we get a female developer relatively early. The larger you get without any women on the team, the harder it is to hire women in the future."

It's a fair point: software development (being a relatively in demand job) is one where applicants regularly decline offers. And being able to get the right people is a competitive advantage. The last thing you want to do is to shrink the size of the talent pool in which you're fishing.

I'd just add the thought that the best person for the (specific) job is not necessarily the best person for the team (even for that specific job - Man United), or for the organization's objectives beyond the specific job.

I think this latter point is what you tech dev head was saying.

That is a very good point.

You might enjoy Amy Edmondson's (she of Psychological Safety fame) book 'Teaming' if you haven't already read it. She annoys the sh!t out of me from time to time, particularly her unwillingness to acknowledge others who contributed to the field before herself, but she makes some excellent points about considering the life cycle fo the employee within the organization, and not just their current fit.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Wearing a mask is not inconvenient on the train. Anyone pretending otherwise is lazy and/or a liar.

I think it's very unpleasant. But I do it on crowded trains.

Northern_Al said:

TOPPING said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Its fantastic to see 2% of people in this country had Covid apparently in the last week, without the NHS collapsing. That's our best ever rate of people acquiring natural immunity isn't it?

Between vaccines and natural immunity we're going to be superbly placed to face the winter.

Yes, it's brilliant, assuming they weren't ill or very ill.

I assume you and your family are doing everything you can to go out and catch Covid so that you can contribute to the heroic national effort to reach natural immunity?

I am. Tested positive last week. One grotty day the rest fine. Didn't report it. Was +ve via LFT for three days then clear rather than go to do a PCR.

I can't be the only one so arguably the number is larger.

I think that's right, and that's why I don't think the number of recorded cases is of much interest; they lie somewhere between the dashboard figures and today's ONS estimates, I'd imagine, but that's a wide range.

But I remain concerned about the steady rise in the number of deaths from Covid. I feel I'm alone.

Nope not alone. I am looking worriedly at these numbers.
When I predicted last year that as many people would die of covid in UK in 2021 as 2020 I thought I was being very pessimistic. But looks like we will get close to it now.

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

Why should one expect every profession to reflect the make up of society at large?

When they are making laws for society at large, frankly or even serving them coffee, then I think they absolutely should do.

You were an army officer. Should the army operate on the basis that 51% of its officer class must be be female, 15% from ethnic minorities, 93% from State schools etc.?

I struggle to see how the army would be worse if so. The entry requirements are the entry requirements.

And I've got to believe that we are close to that for those last two (ethnic minorities and state schools, although it probably repays some googling).

Edit: 12.9% ethnic minorities in the army it seems from Google.

And had you been turned down, because your particular social group had reached its quota for that year, would you consider that fair?

Edit: I do note that in 2019 49% of officer cadets came from private schools, compared to 7% of the population.

Yes we both saw that BBC article which I edited my post to reflect.

It is what it is. If they had said no more people from my social group then first I wouldn't have known and secondly the army would have come to represent far more closely society at large earlier. I can't see how that is a bad thing but neither can I go back in time to assess my reaction.

IMHO, it would be unfair for you to be prevented from pursuing a profession to which you were well-suited because you were deemed to come from a group which was, in aggregate, more privileged than the average. That takes into account neither your abilities, nor your individual circumstances.

In the hierarchy of unfairnesses that this world habitually metes out such an entry would be towards the bottom, I'd suggest. To put it in your compact sardonic style, "worst things happen at sea."

And if it leads to a rather greater reduction in a different and more unfair unfairness, it's surely worth considering. By which I mean let's not rule all this sort of thing out just because it sounds 'woke' or something. Making progress towards Levelling Up - in a meaningful non-noddy, non-Johnson sense - is hard enough without throwing away the tool of positive discrimination.

"Worse things happen at sea" could be applied to the vast majority of issues that we get worked up about in the modern UK. I think still that setting quotas for entry to professions would be an unreasonable degree of interference in peoples' lives by the government.

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

Why should one expect every profession to reflect the make up of society at large?

When they are making laws for society at large, frankly or even serving them coffee, then I think they absolutely should do.

You were an army officer. Should the army operate on the basis that 51% of its officer class must be be female, 15% from ethnic minorities, 93% from State schools etc.?

I struggle to see how the army would be worse if so. The entry requirements are the entry requirements.

And I've got to believe that we are close to that for those last two (ethnic minorities and state schools, although it probably repays some googling).

Edit: 12.9% ethnic minorities in the army it seems from Google.

And had you been turned down, because your particular social group had reached its quota for that year, would you consider that fair?

Edit: I do note that in 2019 49% of officer cadets came from private schools, compared to 7% of the population.

Yes we both saw that BBC article which I edited my post to reflect.

It is what it is. If they had said no more people from my social group then first I wouldn't have known and secondly the army would have come to represent far more closely society at large earlier. I can't see how that is a bad thing but neither can I go back in time to assess my reaction.

IMHO, it would be unfair for you to be prevented from pursuing a profession to which you were well-suited because you were deemed to come from a group which was, in aggregate, more privileged than the average. That takes into account neither your abilities, nor your individual circumstances.

In the hierarchy of unfairnesses that this world habitually metes out such an entry would be towards the bottom, I'd suggest. To put it in your compact sardonic style, "worst things happen at sea."

And if it leads to a rather greater reduction in a different and more unfair unfairness, it's surely worth considering. By which I mean let's not rule all this sort of thing out just because it sounds 'woke' or something. Making progress towards Levelling Up - in a meaningful non-noddy, non-Johnson sense - is hard enough without throwing away the tool of positive discrimination.

"Worse things happen at sea" could be applied to the vast majority of issues that we get worked up about in the modern UK. I think still that setting quotas for entry to professions would be an unreasonable degree of interference in peoples' lives by the government.

Perhaps. But as we are seeing in adverts and anecdotes today, the direction of travel is for it to happen anyway. I don't have a huge objection to a government nudge.

And as for my military career if I had been barred from joining the army on account of a quota I would have had to suck it up and deal with it. And slum it in the Navy or Royal Air Force.

Northstar said:

JBriskin3 said:

Northstar said:

JBriskin3 said:

"The big question is when there will be a vacancy. I just wonder whether Starmer when surveying the political talent around him might decide that someone else is better equipped to defeat Boris."

It seems unlikely that SKS's ego would ever entertain these type of thoughts.

Earlier in the year there was on average a lot of ‘patience’ for Keir - a sense he was off to a perhaps unavoidably (due to Covid) slow start in chipping away at the govt lead, but that he was laying the foundations methodically. It feels like his (perfectly reasonable) absence for the budget might be one of those tipping points where the average view slides over to ‘not good enough’.

Given Labour doesn’t really do defenestrations, that means Keir may go into the next GE with that ‘not good enough’ as the settled view of his performance on all sides.

Brutal analysis for the (apparently non-existent?) SKS fans but it rings true to me.

The people who seem to really like Keir are the Liberal Democrats - his cosmopolitan air of non-dogmatic competence perhaps. A Clegg-like insouciance. So I think he’ll do well at the GE in some odd places and in a way that may not necessity help with cracking the ‘Blue Wall’…

He's very much a second rate Clegg if you ask me.

Still, a few years till the GE - so all to play for.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Andy_JS said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Wearing a mask is not inconvenient on the train. Anyone pretending otherwise is lazy and/or a liar.

I think it's very unpleasant. But I do it on crowded trains.

I don't find it anymore unpleasant than the Tube in general.

Was on the Central Line the other day which is always horrible but it wasn't the mask causing that

It's not just the unpleasantness. You have to remember to have a mask with you, it's a nightmare for the deaf and partially deaf, steams your glasses up and is of questionable use anyway, is an environmental disaster (the regular masks contain single-use plastic), projects a dystopian image and transmits fear to people over and above which is warranted.

TimT said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

It seems that Facebook could have done a bit more research before picking the name Meta:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59090067

I always forget how close to Arabic Hebrew is. Maut is death in Arabic.

Meta is a trendy new word/concept that will date quickly.

Shalom and Salam are the two that I think of (not knowing more than a handful of word in either language).

Edit: I wonder if there is a link to the Latin “mortem”? (For maut, not shalom).

TimT said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

It seems that Facebook could have done a bit more research before picking the name Meta:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59090067

I always forget how close to Arabic Hebrew is. Maut is death in Arabic.

Meta is a trendy new word/concept that will date quickly.

Metaverse

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

The Metaverse was a communal VR environment started by by hackers, but largely owned by corporate interests

Zuckerberg is probably L. Bob Rife.

I doubt he will listen to Reason.

kle4 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

It seems that Facebook could have done a bit more research before picking the name Meta:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59090067

I'd defend them there - it's pretty easy for a name to be something silly, offensive or amusing in another language, you won't be able to cover them all so why try too hard?

Because these things are really important to a company’s brand - and if you’re an $800bn company, you can afford to do the job properly.