Meritocracy V 'Positive Discrimination'

[Anna B]

Meritocracy obviously, but Positive discrimination gives a more balanced and representational 

government so you need a bit of that too, providing of course, they also have merit. 

 

[leviathan13]

On 05/09/2022 at 17:06, Jeffrey Shaw said:

True. But I'm not sure that it matters much who leads  the Labour Party unless and until it's a credible  alternative for being elected to govern the UK. Still, it's odd that its plethora of females [see RJRB's note that "Labour has more female MPs and obviously a much higher percentage of female MPs than the Conservatives."] has never yet produced a female leader. Why's that?

Labour are too scared to define what a woman/female is for fear of a backlash from the Alphabet community... so it wouldn't surprise me if a trans person became leader before a biological woman.

6 hours ago, Anna B said:

Meritocracy obviously, but Positive discrimination gives a more balanced and representational 

government so you need a bit of that too, providing of course, they also have merit. 

 

Wow! Bit of a merit sandwich you've got there.

 

You support 'positive discrimination' but only if the candidate has merit... bit of a paradox, don't you think?

 

"I want the candidate to be selected on merit, but their protected characteristic is more important... as long as they have merit".

 

🤦🤦🤦

[trastrick]

It doesn't really matter what social theory you subscribe too, the reality is that the World outside operates on human animal principles.

 

The strong overpower the weak, success comes to the talented producers, who can provide for their own.

 

Unless the whole world subscribes to one set of principles, you will have inequality and war.

 

Maybe that is only possible in a Communist World, forcefully run by a benevolent dictator. It's  the only alternative to a world that favors enlightened personal freedom.

 

But if you want personal freedom, history says you must fight for it! It will not be visited upon you by angels from on high!

Edited September 7, 2022 by trastrick

[Chekhov]

Not one of the top four offices of state is a white man, and the last four chancellors have been non white

And no compulsory all women (or all "non white") shortlists required.

QED

Edited September 7, 2022 by Chekhov

[Tyke02]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Not one of the top four offices of state is a white man, and the last four chancellors have been non white

And no compulsory all women (or all "non white") shortlists required.

QED

or an indication that for the Conservatives, social class, family wealth and private education are more important than sex and race.

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Not one of the top four offices of state is a white man, and the last four chancellors have been non white

And no compulsory all women (or all "non white") shortlists required.

QED

Very interesting debate on LBC's Shelagh Fogarty show on this very issue.

Many people from ethnic minorities making the important point that if members of the Government stay silent when instances of sexism / racism and other prejudices occur, then what is the point? It doesn't feel representative, but a sham.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Mister M

[Jeffrey Shaw]

2 hours ago, Mister M said:

 It doesn't feel representative, but a sham.

But presumably they feel that they represent and that they're not a sham.

I doubt that views such as yours or mine (or anyone on SF's, for that matter) are all that noteworthy to them.

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Tyke02 said:

or an indication that for the Conservatives, social class, family wealth and private education are more important than sex and race.

That's just an obvious fact surely ! And not just for Tories, as far as how far people get in life, it's true for society as a whole. Not sure how much we can do about that though.....

[Tyke02]

11 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

That's just an obvious fact surely ! And not just for Tories, as far as how far people get in life, it's true for society as a whole. Not sure how much we can do about that though.....

The Social Mobility Commission was created by government in 2016 to attempt to do something about it.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/social-mobility-commission/about

[Mister M]

53 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

But presumably they feel that they represent and that they're not a sham.

I doubt that views such as yours or mine (or anyone on SF's, for that matter) are all that noteworthy to them.

They don't feel like they represent them, that's the point that most of the callers were making.