Meritocracy V 'Positive Discrimination'

[Guest sibon]

55 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

You are talking rubbish, but let's explode the last point :

 

You clearly didn't read the Wikipedia link already posted by Sibon that provides the evidence for these comments.

 

Which was :

 

Conservative chairmen and activists in seats considered potentially winnable were in the run-up to the 2010 election urged by Conservative Central Office to select candidates from the new A-list and were in many cases included in open primaries, new and preferred open-to-all selection meetings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_A-List

 

On the other hand what Labour were doing is, apparently, now illegal (as it should be because it is discriminatory) :

 

After Labour was warned that continuing with all-women shortlists for parliamentary elections would become an "unlawful" practice again under the Equality Act, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-women_shortlist#Impact

 

Tyke02 : "Don't confuse me with the facts"

<whispers>
 

Take a look at the A list on that wiki link.

Do you see now?

[RJRB]

So the upshot is that Old Etonians Cameron and Johnson attained their positions on merit with a brief interlude of May who stepped into a post Brexit void.

It looks as though we may now be heading for another default leader as a result of the internal stresses within the party.

A default leader who may win the membership election but looks ill equipped to win a GE.

 

[Ridgewalk]

On 12/07/2022 at 09:23, Chekhov said:

It has just been reported by R4's Today programme that there has just been a poll by Conservative members (on Conservative Home) as to which of the leadership candidates was their preference.

There was no white male in the top 5.

Shall we also remind ourselves that the Tories have had two female leaders (= Prime ministers).

Now, apart from the fact this rather contradicts the stereotype of racist sexist Conservatives, this result surely proves that positive discrimination - e.g. compulsory numbers of women on short lists etc * - (favoured by the Labour party) is not only discriminatory and patronising, it doesn't work.

 

* In fact Labour had compulsory all women short lists since 1997.

Labour used all-women shortlists to select candidates in half of all winnable seats for the 1997 general election,

How discriminatory and patronising is that ?

Staggering.....

 

 

How many were working class ?

If an incompetent idiotic buffoon can become PM     by grace of having every social, economic and educational advantage available how can we possibly have a meritocratic society ?

 

[Tyke02]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Conservative chairmen and activists in seats considered potentially winnable were in the run-up to the 2010 election urged by Conservative Central Office to select candidates from the new A-list and were in many cases included in open primaries, new and preferred open-to-all selection meetings.

Look at how many of those on the A-list were successful in the 2010 election and then tell me again that you think Central Office wasn't successfully influencing constituency organisations to do their bidding.

 

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

"Don't confuse me with the facts"

Coming from you Justin that is pure comedy gold. Maybe you should use it for your signature. 

 

You have a nice day now.

 

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

So the upshot is that Old Etonians Cameron and Johnson attained their positions on merit with a brief interlude of May who stepped into a post Brexit void.

It looks as though we may now be heading for another default leader as a result of the internal stresses within the party.

A default leader who may win the membership election but looks ill equipped to win a GE.

 

At least there is a choice with the final two candidates of which Oxford college they each got their PPE degree from.🙂

Edited July 22, 2022 by Tyke02

[Chekhov]

Chekhov said (about Tyke02):
"Don't confuse me with the facts"

1 hour ago, Tyke02 said:

Coming from you Justin that is pure comedy gold. Maybe you should use it for your signature. 

Hold on, I'm inaccurate am I ?
Who are you comparing me with, "the experts" ? :

 

Mid March 2020 : "We could have half a million Covid deaths in the UK"
19 March 2020 : "12 weeks to flatten the curve".
Late March 2020 : "This virus is indiscriminate"
May 2020 : "Politicians have become more cautious about immunisation prospects. They are right to be"
November 2020 : "Modelling suggests 4,000 deaths per day worst case scenario".
Spring 2021 : "Get double vaccinated to get out of Covid and back to normal" (it actually took a further year).
July 2021 : "Freedom day is irresponsible, we could have 200K cases per day by August".
11 Dec 2021 : "Omicron could cause 75,000 deaths in England by end of April"
Dec 2021 : "Central estimate" 2890 Omicron deaths a day
15 Dec 2021 : "Omicron likely to be the biggest threat of Covid pandemic so far".

 

This is the best one, pure comedy gold.....

[Tyke02]

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Hold on, I'm inaccurate am I ?
Who are you comparing me with, "the experts" ? :

Mid March 2020 : "We could have half a million Covid deaths in the UK"

I was pointing out that you studiously collate all the news items and sound bites that you think support your positions, while carefully ignoring all of the facts (usually in government or scientific publications) that aren't consistent with them.

 

Since you ask about inaccuracy, there's a case in point (in bold). It's in quotation marks and attributed to an "expert", yet the only links Google finds for that exact phrase is not in any quotation from an expert. You seem to have selectively quoted and slightly modified what was actually said to better fuel your outrage. 

 

Many of those sound bites are also opinions rather than facts.

 

You keep coming back to this list as though it will win all arguments, but it really doesn't. Just take a look at the responses to it that you have already had.

[cgksheff]

2 hours ago, Tyke02 said:

................

links Google finds for that exact phrase..............

I thought that I would try. It took me to Justin  copying and pasting the same post content onto Tripadvisor. 

Got to admire consistency.

Edited July 22, 2022 by cgksheff

[Ridgewalk]

23 hours ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

We now know that it will be one or the other.

Yet neither category has ever led the Labour Party.

Ergo the Conservative party is meritocratic ?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

On 22/07/2022 at 16:29, Ridgewalk said:

Ergo the Conservative party is meritocratic ?

A bit more so than Labour (which isn't saying much, I agree!)

[Guest sibon]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

A bit more so than Labour (which isn't saying much, I agree!)

Looking at the two hapless idiots vying for the leadership, I’d say that meritocracy didn’t have much going for it.