Meritocracy V 'Positive Discrimination'

[L00b]

10 minutes ago, Gormenghast said:

No argument, just a statement.

Yours is a question, not a statement.
 

So. What’s the argument (or point, if you prefer) underlying your question?

 

Without that information, your question isn’t logically tied to the bit of my post, which you quoted: “You’re going to get a ‘balanced representation of current Tory vested interests’.”

 

How do you go from that, to your question: “So its similar to how the EU vested interests operate then?”

 

🤔

Edited July 13, 2022 by L00b

[Gormenghast]

28 minutes ago, L00b said:

Yours is a question, not a statement.
 

So. What’s the argument (or point, if you prefer) underlying your question?

 

Without that information, your question isn’t logically tied to the bit of my post, which you quoted: “You’re going to get a ‘balanced representation of current Tory vested interests’.”

 

How do you go from that, to your question: “So its similar to how the EU vested interests operate then?”

 

🤔

Yes, an error on my part by using a question mark.

 

What i meant was that vested interests usually form part of any decision. You seemed to imply that it was it would be a detriment to the final decision made by the Tory party. I was merely pointing out that it (vested interests) happens everywhere, even in the EU.

 

I hope that clears it up. 

[L00b]

30 minutes ago, Gormenghast said:

Yes, an error on my part by using a question mark.

 

What i meant was that vested interests usually form part of any decision. You seemed to imply that it was it would be a detriment to the final decision made by the Tory party. I was merely pointing out that it (vested interests) happens everywhere, even in the EU.

 

I hope that clears it up. 

It does, thank you.
 

And I would agree that yes, vested interests happens (influence) everywhere, even in the EU.
 

But the point was in reply to Anna’s original suggestion, that the PMship decision of the Tory party would or should accommodate the (whole) electorate. Such will not be the case. Vested interests of non-Tory voters (from Joe Average all the way up to e.g. Labour-/SNP-/LibDem-/ influencing stakeholders) won’t come into it.

 

A fact amply demonstrated already, by the policy choices announced by the hopefuls. There’s just nothing in there towards sorting out stagflation, British business, the cost of living, regional imbalances, <…>

[Gormenghast]

29 minutes ago, L00b said:

It does, thank you.
 

And I would agree that yes, vested interests happens (influence) everywhere, even in the EU.
 

But the point was in reply to Anna’s original suggestion, that the PMship decision of the Tory party would or should accommodate the (whole) electorate. Such will not be the case. Vested interests of non-Tory voters (from Joe Average all the way up to e.g. Labour-/SNP-/LibDem-/ influencing stakeholders) won’t come into it.

 

A fact amply demonstrated already, by the policy choices announced by the hopefuls. There’s just nothing in there towards sorting out stagflation, British business, the cost of living, regional imbalances, <…>

Yes I agree, but unfortunately its the way of the world, and as far as I can see it will always be so. We'll never get totally fair and unbiased decisions being made until altruism becomes the norm.

 

I'm still hoping to find hen's teeth, or rocking horse sh*t but there's no signs at the moment.

[Anna B]

18 minutes ago, Gormenghast said:

Yes I agree, but unfortunately its the way of the world, and as far as I can see it will always be so. We'll never get totally fair and unbiased decisions being made until altruism becomes the norm.

 

I'm still hoping to find hen's teeth, or rocking horse sh*t but there's no signs at the moment.

The irony is, there is no need for this confrontational system.

 

Surely the country would be better off if both parties worked together for the benefit of the whole country, particularly on the long term stuff. 

 

[Gormenghast]

I refer you to the statement I made earlier regarding hen dentition and rocking horse excrement.

 

I agree with your comments but It'll never happen Anna. Too many vested interests.

 

[Jeffrey Shaw]

5 hours ago, Anna B said:

The irony is, there is no need for this confrontational system.

 

Surely the country would be better off if both parties worked together for the benefit of the whole country, particularly on the long term stuff. 

 

But do you not want democracy or choice, then?

[Waldo]

So called “positive” discrimination (there’s nothing positive about any kind of discrimination) is everywhere, sadly.

 

It would be good if humanity could transition to a place where a person’s gender, skin colour, ethnicity, sexuality, religion; etc etc; are simply not an issue; and where all that counts is a person’s character.

 

I just can’t see it happening; humanity you suck.

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Waldo

[Chekhov]

Well, well, well,

So, we now know that the next PM will be either a woman, or a member of an ethnic minority, or, possibly, both.

The fact it will be a Tory (and if a woman it will be the third Tory female PM whilst Labour, for all its "positive" discrimination has had none) is compelling, but what is far more significant, and very encouraging, is they have done this without any discrimination.

Meritocracy in its truest sense.

It could be said that meritocracy is the market at work, whereas "positive" discrimination is more socialist.

If so it is yet another example of the efficiency of the market versus the inefficiency of socialism, to paraphrase Alfred Sherman (an ex communist) :

"Socialism, as religion-substitute, has the disadvantage of susceptibility to judgement by results"

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Chekhov

[Flanker7]

Seeing as you're bringing Political parties into it......How do you explain the advancement of Eton boy and member of the Bullingdon club - (David Cameron),  the person who became PM without having to face a vote from her own party let alone the country - (Teresa May) and Boris who .... I won't bother to mention his 'merits'?