Meritocracy V 'Positive Discrimination'

[Mister M]

On 21/07/2022 at 17:58, Chekhov said:

What evidence have you got for that sweeping statement ?

And that cannot have helped Thatcher or Theresa May, so why are you so sure Lizz Truss would not get any where without this patronising discrimination ?

 

How can that be trues when, at the start of this, the top  places (in the members poll) were taken by women or ethnic minority candidates for the Tory leadership.

Again, you come out with sweeping statements with no evidence for them whatsoever.

Samuel Kasumu says Truss would not have been elected without scheme prioritising women and minority candidates

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/14/former-race-advisor-to-boris-johnson-defends-diversity-schemes-samuel-kasumu

 

[Chekhov]

24 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Samuel Kasumu says Truss would not have been elected without scheme prioritising women and minority candidates

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/14/former-race-advisor-to-boris-johnson-defends-diversity-schemes-samuel-kasumu

That's a piece in the Guardian by a "race adviser".

Any chance of bias ?

I should coco.

 

The fact is the Tories have never had anything as proscriptive (and now illegal) as all women short lists.

Even at the height of all this it was only ever advisory, the party central office could not tell the local parties who to pick as prospective candidates.

Theresa May, and even more so Thatcher, definitely did not have any "positive discrimination". In Thatcher's case it was  probably the opposite, yet she still made it to the top job.

No, "positive discrimination" is patronising and discriminatory, as well as not being required (provably so).

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

That's a piece in the Guardian by a "race adviser".

Any chance of bias ?

I should coco.

 

The fact is the Tories have never had anything as proscriptive (and now illegal) as all women short lists.

Even at the height of all this it was only ever advisory, the party central office could not tell the local parties who to pick as prospective candidates.

Theresa May, and even more so Thatcher, definitely did not have any "positive discrimination". In Thatcher's case it was  probably the opposite, yet she still made it to the top job.

No, "positive discrimination" is patronising and discriminatory, as well as not being required (provably so).

 

A "race adviser" high up in the Tory party.

The Tory party, under David Cameron, had an 'A list' of candidates, of which Liz Truss was one.

You mention the role of local Conservative associations, she was chosen as the prospective MP for a Norfolk constituency, though she was only chosen before she had declared that she had an affair with a married Conservative Mp (Mark Field).

I'm not trying to take anything away from Truss, I'm just stating what was the case.

 

Her parliamentary colleagues have remarked that what characterises Truss is her chameleon like ability to change, which probably accounts for the fact that she's one of the few surviving ministers from the 2010 coalition government. And not being one of the Ministers who resigned from Johnson's government, she wasn't seen by the membership as 'a backstabber'

 

In any case the central proposition of the thread is false. Just because a party doesn't have positive discrimination, doesn't make it meritocratic.

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Mister M

[Chekhov]

59 minutes ago, Mister M said:

In any case the central proposition of the thread is false. Just because a party doesn't have positive discrimination, doesn't make it meritocratic.

That is not the central proposition of the thread.

The central proposition of the thread is positive discrimination is not needed for the "talented" to rise to the top, plus positive discrimination doesn't work as Labour have always been keener on it than the Tories, yet the Tories have had three women leaders (and 3 PMs...) whereas Labour haven't had any.

One could go further, South Africa could be considered a case where, after the end of apartheid, positive discrimination would be justified, but what that actually resulted in is "white flight" of a great many talented and able people (who, quite rightly, thought they would be discriminated against in the jobs market etc) and look what that did to the economy.

I can also remember going back to SA in 2006 and coming across the most surly unfriendly unhelpful check in staff member I have ever had dealings with. She really could not give a toss and I could not help wondering if she had that job, a good job over there remember, because she was black and a beneficiary of positive discrimination. Not that I want to imply, by any means, that all the black employees we dealt with were like that, but I have always remembered that incident.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Chekhov

[Mister M]

10 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

That is not the central proposition of the thread.

The central proposition of the thread is positive discrimination is not needed for the "talented" to rise to the top, plus positive discrimination doesn't work as Labour have always been keener on it than the Tories, yet the Tories have had three women leaders (and 3 PMs...) whereas Labour haven't had any.

One could go further, South Africa could be considered a case where, after the end of apartheid, positive discrimination would be justified, but what that actually resulted in is "white flight" of a great many talented and able people (who, quite rightly, thought they would be discriminated against in the jobs market etc) and look what that did to the economy.

I can also remember going back to SA in 2006 and coming across the most surly unfriendly unhelpful check in staff member I have ever had dealings with. She really could not give a toss and I could not help wondering if she had that job, a good job over there remember, because she was black and a beneficiary of positive discrimination. Not that I want to imply, by any means, that all the black employees we dealt with were like that, but I have always remembered that incident.

Was Liz Truss the most talented; or the one seen by members who didn't have so much money on the bank as to make her remote from people's lives; or the one that didn't "stab Boris in the back"?

Anyway, time will tell. She's certainly not the best public speaker.

[RJRB]

21 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Was Liz Truss the most talented; or the one seen by members who didn't have so much money on the bank as to make her remote from people's lives; or the one that didn't "stab Boris in the back"?

Anyway, time will tell. She's certainly not the best public speaker.

Only time will tell but she was the Party’s choice rather than the Conservative MPs.

In the battle of ideologies she came out on top .

Her basic promise of lower taxes appealed to those who want to level up in the sense that the well paid and wealthy keep more of their riches.

How she will perform this wizardry as we borrow ever more billions remains to be seen.

[Guest sibon]

16 minutes ago, RJRB said:

Only time will tell but she was the Party’s choice rather than the Conservative MPs.

In the battle of ideologies she came out on top .

Her basic promise of lower taxes appealed to those who want to level up in the sense that the well paid and wealthy keep more of their riches.

How she will perform this wizardry as we borrow ever more billions remains to be seen.

I think we all know where the money is going to come from

[trastrick]

18 hours ago, sibon said:

I think we all know where the money is going to come from

Yep!

 

The poor suckers who will around when the bills come due! Long after these politicians have retired to their country homes, on their indexed pensions.

[Baron99]

On 12/07/2022 at 08:23, 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.....

 

 

My bold. 

 

Funny looking back to your initial post & it ended up with women & no white men in the top jobs in a Conservative Govt & apart from the media a few days after, nobody seems to care.  Labour must be kicking themselves? Then again, they don't seem to be able to attract the the kind of quality or intelligence to supply either female or ethnic minority to their front bench that could fill the major offices of State. 

 

And the Lib Dems, they're decades away. 

[Litotes]

19 hours ago, Baron99 said:

My bold. 

 

Funny looking back to your initial post & it ended up with women & no white men in the top jobs in a Conservative Govt & apart from the media a few days after, nobody seems to care.  Labour must be kicking themselves? Then again, they don't seem to be able to attract the the kind of quality or intelligence to supply either female or ethnic minority to their front bench that could fill the major offices of State. 

 

And the Lib Dems, they're decades away. 

Your highlighting of the failing highlights the fact that Labour picks on  ability not on gender - race and gender should not be mentioned... but you do!