Meritocracy V 'Positive Discrimination'

[Flanker7]

Male, white, straight men are in a minority. As is every other individual group......except women .

 

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

Does it really need a specific thread for every single thought that enters his head? We have a Tory thread currently discussing the leadership race. This is adding absolutely nothing and is based on a flawed premise that the people in the leadership race have been selected to be in it.

It isn't  "a Tory thread", and if anything it's just as much about the Labour party, but in actual fact it's about positive discrimination v meritocracy. And how the former is not required anyway (as well as being discriminatory and patronising).

 

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

Lots of wannabie moderators on SF, these days! 

Thankfully we have real moderators here!

It's very worrying when they want to delete a thread because it makes points they do not want made (or cannot answer). As I said earlier I am surprised they cannot see how bad the optics look on that.....

Edited July 12, 2022 by Chekhov

[trastrick]

Just now, Chekhov said:

It isn't  "a Tory thread", and if anything it's just as much about the Labour party, but in actual fact it's about positive discrimination v meritocracy. And how the former is not required useless, as well as being discriminatory and patronising......

 

It's very worrying when they want to delete a thread because it makes points they do not want made (or cannot answer). As I said earlier I am surprised they cannot see how bad the optics look on that.....

Shhhhh! Don't let on! 

 

[Mr Bloke]

2 hours ago, L00b said:

The thoughts in question are expressed in the OP.

 

Justin is perfectly free to daisy chain any further thoughts in his dedicated ‘Modern Life is Rubbish’ stream-of-consciousness thread.

 

Have another free pop at my ‘debate-suppressing’ tendencies 😘

Hmmm...

Thanks!

I'll get back to you on that one should I feel it necessary!

[Anna B]

Unfortunately, it's not a black and white issue. Merit is important (should be the most important), but there's more to it than that.

Whether we like it or not, it's also a popularity contest, (Boris knows all about that,) and an expensive campaign trail, so money and backers come into it too. Also the powerful media play an enormous part; if they are told not to like you, you've had it.

 

Therefore, to get a balanced democratic representation of the electorate, a bit of positive discrimination is sometimes necessary.

I suspect a lot of middle aged white men haven't come forward because they don't want the job at the moment, they're playing the long game - let someone else tackle all the problems, we're still tainted, we'll step in when they've messed up and people have forgotten our misdemenours.

 

Meanwhile a lot of chancers are lining up for the only crack they'll get at the title.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Anna B

[Mr Bloke]

14 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Unfortunately, it's not a black and white issue. Merit is important (should be the most important), but there's more to it than that.

Whether we like it or not, it's also a popularity contest, (Boris knows all about that,) and an expensive campaign trail, so money and backers come into it too. Also the powerful media play an enormous part; if they are told not to like you, you've had it.

 

Therefore, to get a balanced democratic representation of the electorate, a bit of positive discrimination is sometimes necessary.

I suspect a lot of middle aged white men haven't come forward because they don't want the job at the moment, they're playing the long game - let someone else tackle all the problems, we're still tainted, we'll step in when they've messed up and people have forgotten our misdemenours.

 

Meanwhile a lot of chancers are lining up for the only crack they'll get at the title.

Hmmm...

I've got to agree with most of that.

It's like everywhere these days...
... the people most suited and qualified for the job are often those who are put off from applying because of all the 'hoops they have to jump through'. (family friendly version)

[trastrick]

Just now, Anna B said:

Unfortunately, it's not a black and white issue. Merit is important (should be the most important), but there's more to it than that.

Whether we like it or not, it's also a popularity contest, (Boris knows all about that,) and an expensive campaign trail, so money and backers come into it too. Also the powerful media play an enormous part; if they are told not to like you, you've had it.

 

Therefore, to get a balanced democratic representation of the electorate, a bit of positive discrimination is sometimes necessary.

I suspect a lot of middle aged white men haven't come forward because they don't want the job at the moment, they're playing the long game - let someone else tackle all the problems, we're still tainted, we'll step in when they've messed up and people have forgotten our misdemenours.

 

Meanwhile a lot of chancers are lining up for the only crack they'll get at the title.

In most endeavours, the cream tends to always rise to the top! A good plumber, a good singer, a good rocket builder, a good Fried chicken vendor.

 

In government, it's the other way around.! 

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by trastrick

[The_DADDY]

6 hours ago, 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.....

 

 

Meritocracy all the way for me.

All this box ticking and 'positive discrimination ' is wrong. Discrimination 'positive ' or otherwise is simply discrimination. I've always been taught that's a bad thing.

[Mr Bloke]

9 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

Meritocracy all the way for me.

All this box ticking and 'positive discrimination ' is wrong. Discrimination 'positive ' or otherwise is simply discrimination. I've always been taught that's a bad thing.

Hmmm...

Well, I blame the schools!

They're the ones responsible for all this 'box ticking'...

... I think it all started with multiple-choice exams!

[L00b]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Unfortunately, it's not a black and white issue. Merit is important (should be the most important), but there's more to it than that.

Whether we like it or not, it's also a popularity contest, (Boris knows all about that,) and an expensive campaign trail, so money and backers come into it too. Also the powerful media play an enormous part; if they are told not to like you, you've had it.

 

Therefore, to get a balanced democratic representation of the electorate, a bit of positive discrimination is sometimes necessary.

I suspect a lot of middle aged white men haven't come forward because they don't want the job at the moment, they're playing the long game - let someone else tackle all the problems, we're still tainted, we'll step in when they've messed up and people have forgotten our misdemenours.

 

Meanwhile a lot of chancers are lining up for the only crack they'll get at the title.

You may need to define ‘merit’, I think.
 

Because if, by ‘merit’, you refer to the premiership hopeful who has demonstrated the best aptitude, capacity, capability and leadership out of all the others, then that there is arguably none in that crowd, to begin with.
 

And by the evidence of their past performance and current campaigns, several of the more prominent female contenders (Truss, Braverman, Patel) are tail-end charlies already in those ‘merit’ stakes.

 

Any notion of “positive discrimination” or meritocracy is wholly misplaced in that context: they’re all as talentless, opportunistic and venal as each other, irrespective of gender, race or other protected characteristic, and most have demonstrated it amply already.

 

Edit to add: with reference to getting a ‘balanced democratic representation of the electorate’, you’re not going to get that with this new PM. Not in a month of Sundays. You’re going to get a ‘balanced representation of current Tory vested interests’.

Edited July 12, 2022 by L00b