Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Some optimism for the Tories in the latest YouGov poll – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,249
    Andy_JS said:

    "Two IDs could be needed to buy knives online as Starmer promises tougher laws"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-01-22/two-ids-could-be-needed-to-buy-knives-online-as-starmer-promises-tougher-laws

    Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.

    It’s so utterly pathetic. Starmer wants us to to think the main problem here is kids having assess to… kitchen knives. If only we could all focus on that we can fix this so it doesn’t happen again

    Maybe he should make it compulsory for newbuilds to have airport style security gates at every kitchen
    door - and guards ready to frisk anyone under 21

    It won’t be easy but we as a nation can come together and do this
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,377
    Andy_JS said:

    They weren't protections, they were bigotry.
    I notice @Leon and @A_View_From_Cumbria5 liked this.

    I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.

    Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.

    And you object to that? Really?

    I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,046
    Leon said:

    I wonder why some Americans might have finally had enough of “affirmative action” when, according to PB, it is so innocent and just

    Oh


    “1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men”

    “52% believe their company practices “reverse discrimination” in hiring
    1 in 6 have been asked to deprioritize hiring white men
    48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications
    53% believe their job will be in danger if they don’t hire enough diverse employees
    70% believe their company has DEI initiatives for appearances’ sake”

    https://www.resumebuilder.com/1-in-6-hiring-managers-have-been-told-to-stop-hiring-white-men/
    Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to what Trump has just repealed.

    He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.

    Do you want employers to be racist and sexist?
  • kinabalu said:

    White supremacy is BACK.
    Wait until whites start complaining that they can't get into the top universities because they are full of Asian people.
  • Why not go for a triple lock and mandate 3 IDs?
    Good morning

    They are making it up as they go along

    It is impossible to prevent someone from acquiring a knife if they want one

    Go into any domestic kitchen and see the knives used every day

    Another example of we must be seen to do something no matter how impossible it is
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,377

    You really do have contempt for the Ukrainians don't you? Hard to say why though I have my suspicions.
    You do know @Dura_Ace has been hosting Ukrainians don't you?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,754
    MaxPB said:

    I hope the Dems are learning the lesson of rule by EO. Biden used EOs instead of doing the hard work to get legislation through Congress and now Trump is, at the wave of a wand, undoing everything. The next Dem POTUS needs to work with Congress a lot better to get a proper legislative agenda through rather than just use a series of EOs that will just be rescinded by the next guy.

    Like the TikTok ban legislation ?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,999
    edited January 22

    Good morning

    They are making it up as they go along

    It is impossible to prevent someone from acquiring a knife if they want one

    Go into any domestic kitchen and see the knives used every day

    Another example of we must be seen to do something no matter how impossible it is
    The things we really need to do are boring but expensive. Things like Surestart, after school youth clubs, probation and rehabilitation services. All cut or abandoned.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,030

    In the early 90's, I bought a teapot in the Russian Market in Pnomh Penh for $50. I was advised by a companion that it would sell for $750 in Bangkok. Tourism in Cambodia was almost non-existent back then.

    I suspect today the prices are much nearer parity.
    Was the internal volume of the teapot suspiciously much smaller than the outside would suggest? Did someone offer to pay for your flight from Pnomh Penh to Thailand to meet a big fan of Teapots in Bangkok?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,647
    Battlebus said:

    Looking around the world, you can see the 'strongman/oligarch' system being put into place instead of democracy. The strongman is backed and supported by the oligarchs in return for patronage.

    Nice to see the Irish contributing to political thought.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/tanistry

    There’s a good header to be written authoritarian strongmen through history. It’s a recurring phenomenon in all societies.

    The vast majority of examples I can think of ended in tears, usually economic or strategic ruin. The lone counter-example, putting aside those that died naturally at the height of their powers but left their countries a mess, is probably Lee Kuan Yew. Others, like Modi, remain to be seen.

    But they often had an extended honeymoon period to start with and were credited with some early successes, though how much of that was myth vs reality is hard to glean. Mussolini “made the trains run on time”, Putin got the Russian economy off its knees (thanks to a rising oil price), Erdogan had a good first few years with the Turkish economy, likewise Modi in India, Stalin oversaw massive industrialisation in the USSR. The reason it ended in disaster was usually a combination of strategic hubris and overreach (see Putin, Napoleon, Hitler), economic cronyism and corruption (Putin again, probably Xi, Assad, Peron, countless other 3rd world strongmen, let’s see with Trump), ideological experiments that hurt the fabric of society (Mao, Amin, Mugabe, the Iranian ayatollahs) or simply increasing inflexibility as the world around changes (Franco, Castro etc).
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,030
    kjh said:

    You do know @Dura_Ace has been hosting Ukrainians don't you?
    Yeah, in his Putin backed Reeducation
    Camp.

    I think that’s the line isn’t it?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022
    Leon said:

    It’s so utterly pathetic. Starmer wants us to to think the main problem here is kids having assess to… kitchen knives. If only we could all focus on that we can fix this so it doesn’t happen again

    Maybe he should make it compulsory for newbuilds to have airport style security gates at every kitchen
    door - and guards ready to frisk anyone under 21

    It won’t be easy but we as a nation can come together and do this
    The trouble is that this type of response is so asinine it only reinforces the idea that Starmer wants to hide something. Why did the police and government speak in the way they did after the crime. Avoiding contempt of court doesn't really explain why the Ricin announcement was made two months later, the day before the budget.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    I think the quote is from Johnson's EO, as shown below. Trump has rescinded that.

    https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/executive-order-11246/regulations

    Basically, what Trump's done is remove the requirement for those people not to be racist or sexist asshats when they employ people.
    Isn't that already covered by other laws, though? In which case what he's done is removed the requirement to write the law into every government contract?
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,332
    Who actually runs Prevent? Who's held accountable for their failures and will get to be in the bad seat at a select committee? Why can I google the senior leadership team of my local hospital trust or police force or even MI5 but when it comes to Prevent why does it appear to be a black hole?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,249
    edited January 22

    Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to what Trump has just repealed.

    He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.

    Do you want employers to be racist and sexist?
    Here are just some of the laws that prevent American employers being racist and sexist

    “In the United States, several laws explicitly prohibit racist hiring practices and ensure equal employment opportunities. Here are the key ones:



    1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    • Prohibits: Discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, and other employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
    • Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees.
    • Enforced by: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

    2. Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981)
    • Prohibits: Racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, which includes employment contracts.
    • Covers: All employers, regardless of size.
    • Notable Aspect: Allows employees to bypass the EEOC and go straight to court.

    3. Equal Pay Act of 1963
    • Prohibits: Pay discrimination based on sex, but it also intersects with race and other protected characteristics in cases of intersectional discrimination.
    • Covers: Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

    4. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act
    • Prohibits: Discrimination against individuals with disabilities, but also supports equality for employees of all races with disabilities.
    • Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees.


    5. The Fair Housing Act (related to workplace housing benefits)
    • Prohibits: Discrimination based on race or ethnicity in housing, which can overlap with employment practices related to housing benefits or relocations.

    6. State and Local Anti-Discrimination Laws
    • Many states and cities have their own laws that go beyond federal protections. For example:
    • California: Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
    • New York: Human Rights Law.

    These laws collectively create a framework that aims to prevent and address racial discrimination in hiring and employment. Employers found violating these laws can face lawsuits, fines, and other penalties.”


    What these laws DON’T allow you to do is racially discriminate against, say, whites or Asians in the interests of “affirmative action”
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,249
    edited January 22
    kjh said:

    I notice @Leon and @A_View_From_Cumbria5 liked this.

    I assume @Andy_JS has misunderstood and I hope that is the case for you two as well, but one can't tell, especially with someone who referred to Kemi as a coconut. Maybe you would like to comment, but the original executive order banned discrimination. It was NOT positive discrimination.

    Trump's cancelling of an EO that has stood for 60 years means people can now discriminate against blacks, jews etc in employment. The only affirmative action was that they did not discriminate. They did not have to treat minorities favourable, just not treat them unfavourably.

    And you object to that? Really?

    I haven't read it all so am happy to be proved wrong.
    This is complete drivel. You read it wrong

    See my prior comment
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,549

    Michael Howard commented that a requirement for the job of Home Sec is saying no to the totalitarian ideas that get presented.

    Apparently these ideas are inherited in various departments, and re-presented at intervals. Indefinite detention without trial is a classic of the genre.
    A newly-appointed minister arrives in a department responsible for a subject to which they've never given a moment's thought. "I have to be seen to be doing something," they cry. "No problem, minister. Here's a policy we've working on for years. It's ready to go." I assume this explains debacles like HIPS.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,249
    Is this it for the next four years? Is the PB left gonna suffer a drop of 38 IQ points - taking it dangerously under 50 - as they all go mad with Trump Derangement Syndrome and start making shit up?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022
    kjh said:

    You do know @Dura_Ace has been hosting Ukrainians don't you?
    And yet post after post of his is dripping with contempt as he endlessly refers to the 'SMO', otherwise known as the biggest European war since 1945.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,186
    edited January 22

    As discussed a thread or two back, Yvette Cooper also complained that Amazon did not know about Rudakubana's conviction, as if they should or even could. Meanwhile, since Prevent knocked him back as not a terrorist, it looks like Starmer's big wheeze is to muddle the definition of terrorism (is that an Icelandic bank waving?) rather than extend Prevent's mandate or set up a new body for non-terrorist spree killer wannabes.

    Not to mention that kitchen knives are easily found in kitchens. The clue is in the name.
    We don't need a new body for non-terrorist spree killer wannabees. We just need to make the existing services (in this case, given the age, probably CAMHS*) actually work.

    One could widen Prevent's mandate - although that would need some different approaches within Prevent, rather than its present focus on de-radicalisation - or simply have a mechanism for Prevent to say, "not our remit, but this person does need action", and for that action to happen in a timely way, not just go in the queue for CAMHS or effectively be discharged.

    What needs to happen in this case, of course, is a review back through the history to identify what, done when, might have changed things. Preventing the purchase of a particular knife probably would have made little difference, assuming there were accessible knives in the house - it seems a somewhat planned attack, rather than something that came out of nowhere and was made worse because the person happened to have a knife on them. Making knives harder to buy may help with some kids carrying knives, as parents are likely to notice (one would hope!) if one of their knives has gone missing for an extended period. Knives that children obtain that parents know nothing about probably is a legitimate problem to tackle (not that I'm convinced proposed remedies will help) but not linked to the Rudakubana case.

    *I had a colleague who started researching child and adolescent mental health services, then stopped because it was too depressing and clearly there was not the money or will to actually implement any research findings.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,392
    Bob Dylan had some pertinent words for people who are bewildered by the revolution in America:

    Your old road is rapidly agin'
    Please get out of the new one
    If you can't lend your hand
    For the times they are a-changin'
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,908
    Leon said:

    This is complete drivel. You read it wrong

    See my prior comment
    Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html
  • ManOfGwentManOfGwent Posts: 147

    The things we really need to do are boring but expensive. Things like Surestart, after school youth clubs, probation and rehabilitation services. All cut or abandoned.
    I have my doubts about youth clubs and surestart being the answer. The South Wales valley's is often quoted as the poorest part of western Europe, very little in the way of youth centres and the like when I was growing up, or even today. But oddly there was very little of people going around stabbing each other from the lack of state services. I think it's long since time we accept that there is at times and cultural element to knife crime.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,360

    I agree. Although I suspect there is a difference, in that Sharif's case was probably politically motivated, with the initiative coming from the minister, whereas the 'banning driving as a general punishment' idea has been kicking around the government for ages and may well have resurfaced as a civil service suggestion / option, whether off-the-shelf, or an individual official pushing the idea as a pet project.
    One issue about banning people from driving is that the penalty is disproportionally severe on people who live in areas with inadequate public transport.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,999
    Foss said:

    Who actually runs Prevent? Who's held accountable for their failures and will get to be in the bad seat at a select committee? Why can I google the senior leadership team of my local hospital trust or police force or even MI5 but when it comes to Prevent why does it appear to be a black hole?

    The budget for Prevent in London next year is £2m, what could any of us do with that? It was £6m a couple of years ago which still isn't much to do anything with.

    On the issue of tackling violent non ideological threats the 2023 independent review of Prevent made a specific recommendation to stop Prevent getting involved in dealing with those.

    "Recommendation 9
    Restrict Prevent funding to groups and projects which challenge extremist and terrorist ideology via counter-narratives and activities.
    Prevent budgets should not be allocated towards general youth work or community initiatives that do not meet these criteria."
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    Bob Dylan had some pertinent words for people who are bewildered by the revolution in America:

    Your old road is rapidly agin'
    Please get out of the new one
    If you can't lend your hand
    For the times they are a-changin'

    Can't imagine he's as happy with these changes.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560
    viewcode said:

    Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html
    EO 11246 seems to me to say "passively not discriminating isn't enough, you have to actively prove you're not discriminating, and you have to write the legal requirement to not discriminate into all government contracts".
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,999

    I have my doubts about youth clubs and surestart being the answer. The South Wales valley's is often quoted as the poorest part of western Europe, very little in the way of youth centres and the like when I was growing up, or even today. But oddly there was very little of people going around stabbing each other from the lack of state services. I think it's long since time we accept that there is at times and cultural element to knife crime.
    One of the best ways to change culture and improve integration over time is by building cross cultural friendships at a formative age.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,411
    TimS said:

    There’s a good header to be written authoritarian strongmen through history. It’s a recurring phenomenon in all societies.

    The vast majority of examples I can think of ended in tears, usually economic or strategic ruin. The lone counter-example, putting aside those that died naturally at the height of their powers but left their countries a mess, is probably Lee Kuan Yew. Others, like Modi, remain to be seen.

    But they often had an extended honeymoon period to start with and were credited with some early successes, though how much of that was myth vs reality is hard to glean. Mussolini “made the trains run on time”, Putin got the Russian economy off its knees (thanks to a rising oil price), Erdogan had a good first few years with the Turkish economy, likewise Modi in India, Stalin oversaw massive industrialisation in the USSR. The reason it ended in disaster was usually a combination of strategic hubris and overreach (see Putin, Napoleon, Hitler), economic cronyism and corruption (Putin again, probably Xi, Assad, Peron, countless other 3rd world strongmen, let’s see with Trump), ideological experiments that hurt the fabric of society (Mao, Amin, Mugabe, the Iranian ayatollahs) or simply increasing inflexibility as the world around changes (Franco, Castro etc).
    I'm reading James Holland's book on the allied invasion of Italy. One thing that keeps coming up is just how poor and backward a country Italy was in 1943. The contrast between the industrial might of the USA and the British (and Dominions, and Empire) and what Italy had is stark. Its true for Germany too. Despite the propaganda of Blitzkrieg, with rampaging tanks and motorised Panzer grenadiers, in reality the German Landseer marching into Russia in 1941 had a very similar experience to those of their fathers generation. Lots of horses, not enough trucks.

    What the Dictators did well was propaganda. Not afraid to tell the big lie (and ultimately to fall for your own lie).
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,314

    Bob Dylan had some pertinent words for people who are bewildered by the revolution in America:

    Your old road is rapidly agin'
    Please get out of the new one
    If you can't lend your hand
    For the times they are a-changin'

    Same generation.. Teenage Radicals in the 1960s. Geriatric assholes in the 2020s.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,392
    viewcode said:

    Speaking seriously, I think the "affirmative action" mentioned in Johnson's EO 11246 (which prohibits race discrimination) is not the same as "affirmative action" in the 2020s (which enables it if deemed beneficial). This I assume causes all the confusion. Or have I misread it?

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html
    The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.

    The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.

    Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-south-bend-indiana-discriminating-against-black-and-female-police
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,797
    Leon said:

    It’s so utterly pathetic. Starmer wants us to to think the main problem here is kids having assess to… kitchen knives. If only we could all focus on that we can fix this so it doesn’t happen again

    Maybe he should make it compulsory for newbuilds to have airport style security gates at every kitchen
    door - and guards ready to frisk anyone under 21

    It won’t be easy but we as a nation can come together and do this
    Trump demonstrates very well that if you are going to do performative stuff it has to be spectacular and attention raising and crowd pleasing. His form of hubristic lying puts into the shadows Starmerish stuff like 'We are going to require dual verification when buying a screwdriver online so that psychopaths will be really puzzled as to how to commit acts of violence on random strangers'.

    What Trump might say would be 'We are going to lock up/section dangerous deranged people before they commit crimes, and there will be thousands of them'.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,942
    Driver said:

    EO 11246 seems to me to say "passively not discriminating isn't enough, you have to actively prove you're not discriminating, and you have to write the legal requirement to not discriminate into all government contracts".
    Maybe I'm being naïve here, but I can't imagine cuddly old uncle Donald doing this just to save people a bit of paperwork. There are surely further plans afoot even if this is a first, perhaps trivial, step.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,360
    Cicero said:

    Same generation.. Teenage Radicals in the 1960s. Geriatric assholes in the 2020s.
    Geriatric I might be. Asshole I'm not.

    Although my really radical days were from v.late 50';s, rather than later in the 60's.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,249

    Maybe I'm being naïve here, but I can't imagine cuddly old uncle Donald doing this just to save people a bit of paperwork. There are surely further plans afoot even if this is a first, perhaps trivial, step.
    Alternatively, as @Fishing notes, an awful lot of white and Asian Americans - men in particular - have had enough of being lawfully discriminated against. Trump promised to fix this, he was duly elected, he is now fixing it

    As simple as that
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,377

    And yet post after post of his is dripping with contempt as he endlessly refers to the 'SMO', otherwise known as the biggest European war since 1945.
    @Dura_Ace is here to wind you up.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    Maybe I'm being naïve here, but I can't imagine cuddly old uncle Donald doing this just to save people a bit of paperwork. There are surely further plans afoot even if this is a first, perhaps trivial, step.
    I suspect he's asked someone to find everything that mentions "affirmative action" and not thought beyond that.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,908

    The legal underpinnings of what became 'woke' all date back to the original 60s legislation and Trump is serious about rolling it back.

    The big one is disparate impact which treats unequal outcomes as evidence of discrimination and in effect makes meritocracy illegal in many cases.

    Here's an example of disparate impact in action, with the Biden DOJ suing South Bend (of Pete Buttigieg fame) for using 'a written examination that discriminates against Black applicants and a physical fitness test that discriminates against female applicants'.

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-south-bend-indiana-discriminating-against-black-and-female-police
    No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    MaxPB said:

    I hope the Dems are learning the lesson of rule by EO. Biden used EOs instead of doing the hard work to get legislation through Congress and now Trump is, at the wave of a wand, undoing everything. The next Dem POTUS needs to work with Congress a lot better to get a proper legislative agenda through rather than just use a series of EOs that will just be rescinded by the next guy.

    The Republicans have also noticed, and plan to spend a fair chunk of their next two years codifying what Trump is doing this week, so that the next guy can’t just undo it with the stroke of a pen.
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,086
    Andy_JS said:

    "Two IDs could be needed to buy knives online as Starmer promises tougher laws"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-01-22/two-ids-could-be-needed-to-buy-knives-online-as-starmer-promises-tougher-laws

    Something needs to be done, this is something, so let's do it.

    So where do they go when this fails and the tabloids howl for more to be done.

    Signed in triplicate.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,279

    Which, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to what Trump has just repealed.

    He has not just repealed Affirmative Action. He has repealed the necessity for employers not to be racist or sexist, as set out in those heady affirmative-action days of 1965. That is a very different thing.

    Do you want employers to be racist and sexist?
    Plenty of US laws still exist saying employers can't be racist or sexist. Trump hasn't repealed any of them, no.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,747
    Driver said:

    Isn't that already covered by other laws, though? In which case what he's done is removed the requirement to write the law into every government contract?
    Yes, the Civil Rights Act already covers everything in the EO and that obviously isn't being repealed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,439
    Sandpit said:

    The Republicans have also noticed, and plan to spend a fair chunk of their next two years codifying what Trump is doing this week, so that the next guy can’t just undo it with the stroke of a pen.
    If his party has a big majority in Congress too though he can
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,973

    Plenty of US laws still exist saying employers can't be racist or sexist. Trump hasn't repealed any of them, no.
    Which laws?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,377
    Leon said:

    This is complete drivel. You read it wrong

    See my prior comment
    Well unless I am missing your post on it you referred to 'other' laws not this one. And this one seems quite clear

    I mean have you actually read it? Or are you really as dim as @TheScreamingEagles keeps pointing out.

    Or do you believe that employers can discriminate against Jews and Blacks? The only affirmative action is that discrimination doesn't take place.

    Have you ever wondered why no Conservative president ever reversed this?

    Or are you a bigot and believe in this stuff eg for example allow for White only toilets and Coloured only toilets. That's progress.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,360
    Taz said:

    So where do they go when this fails and the tabloids howl for more to be done.

    Signed in triplicate.
    When I was, first a Biology A level student, and later a Pharmacy student I was required to have, and carry between my home and site of study, a 'cut-throat' razor. Admittedly it was usually wrapped in a dissection kit, along with scalpels, but I wonder what could be said nowadays.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,360
    HYUFD said:

    If his party has a big majority in Congress too though he can
    That'd EVER such a big 'if', of course.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    Which laws?
    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5095799/#Comment_5095799
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,973
    MaxPB said:

    Yes, the Civil Rights Act already covers everything in the EO and that obviously isn't being repealed.
    So is the EO completely meaningless?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,249
    L
    viewcode said:

    No I believe you, it's just that I don't think EO 11246 is an example of it. If I was getting rid of affirmative action (or taking disparate impact into account), then I wouldn't have started with EO 11246. Doing so comprehensively throws the baby out with the bathwater.
    LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good

    Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump
    Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected

    What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,747

    So is the EO completely meaningless?
    Yes, other than introducing the concept of "affirmative action" in non-discrimination which the CRA didn't do.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,713

    When I was, first a Biology A level student, and later a Pharmacy student I was required to have, and carry between my home and site of study, a 'cut-throat' razor. Admittedly it was usually wrapped in a dissection kit, along with scalpels, but I wonder what could be said nowadays.
    It's a legitimate reason to carry a knife for work related purposes.

    Just don't take it to a nightclub.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,973
    Leon said:

    L

    LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good

    Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump
    Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected

    What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
    So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,377
    So we have numerous posts here justifying it because it exists in other laws. Well good and lets hope he doesn't do anything about them, but really that is your justification. Really? So you think Trump was just doing a bit of tidying up while he was signing EOs to release a few criminals in his circle, or do you think maybe he was trying to make a point.

    Those justifying his actions here are pathetic. They are justifying bigotry.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,317

    I'm reading James Holland's book on the allied invasion of Italy. One thing that keeps coming up is just how poor and backward a country Italy was in 1943. The contrast between the industrial might of the USA and the British (and Dominions, and Empire) and what Italy had is stark. Its true for Germany too. Despite the propaganda of Blitzkrieg, with rampaging tanks and motorised Panzer grenadiers, in reality the German Landseer marching into Russia in 1941 had a very similar experience to those of their fathers generation. Lots of horses, not enough trucks.

    What the Dictators did well was propaganda. Not afraid to tell the big lie (and ultimately to fall for your own lie).
    The popular image of dictatorships is nasty but efficient, Whereas they are mostly nasty, and mostly incompetent.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,747

    So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
    If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    So is the EO completely meaningless?
    No, because it adds a whole load of bureaucracy around proving that you aren't discriminating.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,249
    I am genuinely stunned by the stupidity of some of the remarks on here

    And not all of them are by me

    Seriously. Jesus. Get a grip PB
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    HYUFD said:

    If his party has a big majority in Congress too though he can
    They’re working on the assumption that they have both Houses only until the mid-terms, so it will be full steam ahead until then.

    See the last two years of Biden’s presidency, and the last two years of Trump’s first presidency, for what happens when the President doesn’t command both houses and everything needs cross-party agreement to some extent.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,973
    edited January 22
    MaxPB said:

    If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
    Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
    It's wrong to choose a woman over a more qualified man for the sake of diversity, yes. Just as it would be wrong to hire a man over a more qualified woman to be a primary school teacher.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,249
    Once again, for the hard of thinking, especially @kjh


    Here are just some of the laws that prevent American employers being racist and sexist

    “In the United States, several laws explicitly prohibit racist hiring practices and ensure equal employment opportunities. Here are the key ones:



    1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    • Prohibits: Discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, and other employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
    • Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees.
    • Enforced by: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

    2. Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981)
    • Prohibits: Racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, which includes employment contracts.
    • Covers: All employers, regardless of size.
    • Notable Aspect: Allows employees to bypass the EEOC and go straight to court.

    3. Equal Pay Act of 1963
    • Prohibits: Pay discrimination based on sex, but it also intersects with race and other protected characteristics in cases of intersectional discrimination.
    • Covers: Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

    4. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act
    • Prohibits: Discrimination against individuals with disabilities, but also supports equality for employees of all races with disabilities.
    • Covers: Employers with 15 or more employees.


    5. The Fair Housing Act (related to workplace housing benefits)
    • Prohibits: Discrimination based on race or ethnicity in housing, which can overlap with employment practices related to housing benefits or relocations.

    6. State and Local Anti-Discrimination Laws
    • Many states and cities have their own laws that go beyond federal protections. For example:
    • California: Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
    • New York: Human Rights Law.

    These laws collectively create a framework that aims to prevent and address racial discrimination in hiring and employment. Employers found violating these laws can face lawsuits, fines, and other penalties.”


    What these laws DON’T allow you to do is racially discriminate against, say, whites or Asians in the interests of “affirmative action”
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 622

    I'm reading James Holland's book on the allied invasion of Italy. One thing that keeps coming up is just how poor and backward a country Italy was in 1943. The contrast between the industrial might of the USA and the British (and Dominions, and Empire) and what Italy had is stark. Its true for Germany too. Despite the propaganda of Blitzkrieg, with rampaging tanks and motorised Panzer grenadiers, in reality the German Landseer marching into Russia in 1941 had a very similar experience to those of their fathers generation. Lots of horses, not enough trucks.

    What the Dictators did well was propaganda. Not afraid to tell the big lie (and ultimately to fall for your own lie).
    On the subject of Italy in the 40's, I'd recommend a film called "The Children's Train" for it's depiction of the poverty in the Italian south compared to the north. There is also an underlying suggestion that only the rich and well off can afford to do politics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children's_Train
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560
    kjh said:

    So we have numerous posts here justifying it because it exists in other laws. Well good and lets hope he doesn't do anything about them, but really that is your justification. Really? So you think Trump was just doing a bit of tidying up while he was signing EOs to release a few criminals in his circle, or do you think maybe he was trying to make a point.

    Those justifying his actions here are pathetic. They are justifying bigotry.

    What "affirmative action" has become is bigotry.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,747
    Driver said:

    No, because it adds a whole load of bureaucracy around proving that you aren't discriminating.
    And in doing so it also ushered in an era of reverse discrimination aka affirmative action that meant people who weren't best qualified for the role were given preference over people who were because they needed to show the DoJ they were compliant in pure number terms. It's completely idiotic and hopefully we roll back similar legislation here and regulatory requirements for companies to report racial and sex demographics of their employees.

    I really hope that Trump targets B Corps next, it's completely insidious.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,317
    Nigelb said:

    Trump is consistent only in doing what he perceives as beneficial to him. This was transactional payback for the libertarian vote.
    Libertarians lionise Ulbricht, presumably because he's a drug trafficker who's white, and from an affluent background/
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,973
    Driver said:

    It's wrong to choose a woman over a more qualified man for the sake of diversity, yes. Just as it would be wrong to hire a man over a more qualified woman to be a primary school teacher.
    This is so naive and ignores years of careful dismantling of sexism BECAUSE of affirmative action.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,392

    Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
    Why is meritocratic hiring insufficient?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,747

    Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
    How do you know that? On what are you basing this theory?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,794

    I'm reading James Holland's book on the allied invasion of Italy. One thing that keeps coming up is just how poor and backward a country Italy was in 1943. The contrast between the industrial might of the USA and the British (and Dominions, and Empire) and what Italy had is stark. Its true for Germany too. Despite the propaganda of Blitzkrieg, with rampaging tanks and motorised Panzer grenadiers, in reality the German Landseer marching into Russia in 1941 had a very similar experience to those of their fathers generation. Lots of horses, not enough trucks.

    What the Dictators did well was propaganda. Not afraid to tell the big lie (and ultimately to fall for your own lie).
    Italy has always had a north/south divide in that regard. One other thing about dictators is that early successes cause overreach. If Hitler had stopped after the annexation of Austria, he'd be venerated today as a political mastermind. Likewise if Putin had been content with Crimea.
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,086

    When I was, first a Biology A level student, and later a Pharmacy student I was required to have, and carry between my home and site of study, a 'cut-throat' razor. Admittedly it was usually wrapped in a dissection kit, along with scalpels, but I wonder what could be said nowadays.
    Well you may get away with it in court.

    https://www.knivesandtools.co.uk/en/ct/uk-knife-laws.htm
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,360

    Without that affirmative action historically you wouldn’t see half as many women doctors, lawyers, or engineers because they would still be closed shops. I am not talking about in America either, I am talking about in this country.
    What, one wonders, was in Trump's mind when he signed that EO. Given the mountain of subsequent laws later enacted.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    MaxPB said:

    If they weren't qualified or the best person for the role, then yes. People should be judged by the content of their character, not their race, sex etc...
    Didn’t someone American once mention that they’d love their kids to live in a world where all that mattered was the content of their character..?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,217



    So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.

    Yeah, but spare a thought for us straight white cismales. We've had it fucking rough for years.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,973
    MaxPB said:

    How do you know that? On what are you basing this theory?
    It is plain to see in my own working life. Senior lawyers still subconsciously (and consciously) discriminate against women because of fears about pregnancies and childcare. They have had to have been forced into change because of things like affirmative action.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,377
    Leon said:

    L

    LBJ’s “affirmative action” order is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of woke/DEI is built. It’s the beginning and kernel of the idea that you CAN discriminate by race and gender - against whites and men, but more recently East Asians in education etc - if it is perceived to achieve a greater societal good

    Now, you may think it’s appalling that Trump
    Is reversing and demolishing all of this. The Diversity agenda, the Woke-Industrial Complex. But America is - just about - still a democracy and Trump was explicitly promising to do all this, if elected. He was elected

    What he has NOT done is “suddenly made it legal to have racist hiring policies”, or “brought back Jim Crow laws” or any of that hysterical nonsense
    What he has just done is cancel a law that stops you having racist policies. Either this has no effect because of other laws (good), so why do it, or it has an effect.

    It has nothing whatsoever to do with Woke. This was 1965. This is about segregation, this is about hating blacks, hating jews, discriminating against women. This isn't about today's stuff.

    So if some laws go too far regarding affirmative action, do something about them. Don't destroy the law that gives the most basic rights.

    Doing so implies out and out bigotry.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,186
    Foxy said:

    It's a legitimate reason to carry a knife for work related purposes.

    Just don't take it to a nightclub.
    What if one's employment is as an assassin?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    This is so naive and ignores years of careful dismantling of sexism BECAUSE of affirmative action.
    You may not have noticed, but it's currently 2025 not 1970.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,999
    People with Starmer Derangement Syndrome accusing people of having Trump Derangement Syndrome is very, very PB!!!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,249
    edited January 22

    So are you saying that it was wrong for industries historically dominated by men to consciously hire more women? Because that is the same thing.
    Not at all. In the 1960s I think there was a very good case for “affirmative action” and LBJ’s EO. America was only just emerging from the Jim Crow era

    No, 70 years later, those needed checks and remedies have morphed into a vast and parasitic industry of “Diversity” which really quite seriously discriminates against whites, Asians and men and which Americans have democratically decided to demolish. Such is democracy
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,973
    Driver said:

    You may not have noticed, but it's currently 2025 not 1970.
    Yeah. And there is still work to do. It is naive to think that all these problems and inbuild prejudices have disappeared because they haven’t
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,439
    edited January 22

    That'd EVER such a big 'if', of course.
    Not really, every second term President has seen his party lose control of Congress or fail to gain control of Congress in the midterms for the last 50 years with a new President from the opposing party elected after them therefore entering office with Congress behind them
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,973
    Leon said:

    Not at all. In the 1960s I think there was a very good case for “affirmative action” and LBJ’s EO. America was only just emerging from the Jim Crow era

    No, 70 years later, those needed checks and remedies have morphed into a vast and parasitic industry of “Diversity” which really quite seriously discriminates against whites, Asians and men and which Americans have democratically decided to demolish. Such is democracy
    Get a grip man. Woke derangement syndrome is real and you are riddled.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,279

    Which laws?
    Equal Pay Act of 1963, Civil Rights Act of 1964 etc.
  • Leon said:

    Not at all. In the 1960s I think there was a very good case for “affirmative action” and LBJ’s EO. America was only just emerging from the Jim Crow era

    No, 70 years later, those needed checks and remedies have morphed into a vast and parasitic industry of “Diversity” which really quite seriously discriminates against whites, Asians and men and which Americans have democratically decided to demolish. Such is democracy
    Nope, we live in an era where white blokes post they want the government to help fund white babies over all other babies.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,392
    kjh said:

    What he has just done is cancel a law that stops you having racist policies. Either this has no effect because of other laws (good), so why do it, or it has an effect.

    It has nothing whatsoever to do with Woke. This was 1965. This is about segregation, this is about hating blacks, hating jews, discriminating against women. This isn't about today's stuff.

    So if some laws go too far regarding affirmative action, do something about them. Don't destroy the law that gives the most basic rights.

    Doing so implies out and out bigotry.
    When the system acts like a ratchet, sometimes the only effective thing you can do is destroy the whole thing and start again. Tinkering with the bits that go 'too far' doesn't achieve anything.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,999
    edited January 22
    kjh said:

    So we have numerous posts here justifying it because it exists in other laws. Well good and lets hope he doesn't do anything about them, but really that is your justification. Really? So you think Trump was just doing a bit of tidying up while he was signing EOs to release a few criminals in his circle, or do you think maybe he was trying to make a point.

    Those justifying his actions here are pathetic. They are justifying bigotry.

    All of this will get tested in court. That's where what is and is not permissible will be decided. And courts in different parts of the US are going to see things differently, so it will end up at SCOTUS. The key question is: does a business have the absolute right to employ who it wants for whatever reason it wants? I would not bet against the current court deciding it does. But it will take several years to get there.

  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,030

    It is plain to see in my own working life. Senior lawyers still subconsciously (and consciously) discriminate against women because of fears about pregnancies and childcare. They have had to have been forced into change because of things like affirmative action.
    That’s a sweeping statement based on, I’m guessing (like you),” feels” rather than you actually conducting surveys with the protection of anonymity.

    More important than affirmative action in increasing the numbers of females in professions such as law and medicine are cultural changes and the increase in women feeling they can/should go and study these subjects rather than settling for being a housewife. That was not about affirmative action it was about culture changes.

    Please however feel free to tell Cyclefree she owes her career in law to affirmative action forcing open a door for her rather than her getting on and doing it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,973
    I feel like PB tories need to pay more attention to their DEI training
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,086
    Prince Harry, remember him, married an actress and makes mediocre shows for Netflix. Well he has settled with News Corp ahead of any trial.

    So much for pursuing it to the bitter end.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/prince-harry-settles-legal-claim-against-sun-publisher/ar-AA1xEhUI?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=67192d3ce7324d85a22b6df160d022d7&ei=11
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,973
    boulay said:

    Please however feel free to tell Cyclefree she owes her career in law to affirmative action forcing open a door for her rather than her getting on and doing it.

    That is a completely out of order.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,367
    Foxy said:

    The new logo for twitter is a bit of a giveaway too.


    I thought they were going for this one


  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,249
    The next four years are gonna be a hoot, on PB
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,086

    Nope, we live in an era where white blokes post they want the government to help fund white babies over all other babies.
    Not his finest moment to be sure.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,999
    MaxPB said:

    How do you know that? On what are you basing this theory?

    One place to start is the before and after.

  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,560

    Yeah. And there is still work to do. It is naive to think that all these problems and inbuild prejudices have disappeared because they haven’t
    Sure, but we've reached a point where enough progress has been made that policies that have become counterproductive need to be moved on from.
This discussion has been closed.