Meritocracy V 'Positive Discrimination'

[RJRB]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

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"

 

Well ,well,well

Another truth that dwells only in the mind of Chekhov.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2022/07/17/david-cameron-credits-himself-for-diversity-of-candidates-in-tory-leadership-race/

Cameron recognised the need to appeal to a wider spectrum

[Guest sibon]

16 minutes ago, RJRB said:

Well ,well,well

Another truth that dwells only in the mind of Chekhov.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2022/07/17/david-cameron-credits-himself-for-diversity-of-candidates-in-tory-leadership-race/

Cameron recognised the need to appeal to a wider spectrum

Well fancy that. You believe one thing, you don’t bother checking, then another thing turns out to be true.

 

A thing that is the exact opposite of the truth that you perceived.

[Chekhov]

9 hours ago, RJRB said:

Well ,well ,well

Another truth that dwells only in the mind of Chekhov.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2022/07/17/david-cameron-credits-himself-for-diversity-of-candidates-in-tory-leadership-race/

Cameron recognised the need to appeal to a wider spectrum

This is misleading BS from "The National News" (no less).

Cameron might have "recognised" anything he wanted but he was not in a position to do much about it. There have never been all women short lists in the Tory party, or anything approaching them.

Next you'll be saying Thatcher only became PM because of "positive discrimination".

 

BTW, Cameron was being inconsistent :

 

'he said that his “pitch” was for “positive action” to “accelerate meritocracy”'

 

= A contradiction in terms

Edited July 19, 2022 by Chekhov

[Guest sibon]

31 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

This is misleading BS from "The National News" (no less).

Cameron might have "recognised" anything he wanted but he was not in a position to do much about it. There have never been all women short lists in the Tory party, or anything approaching them.

Next you'll be saying Thatcher only became PM because of "positive discrimination".

 

BTW, Cameron was being inconsistent :

 

'he said that his “pitch” was for “positive action” to “accelerate meritocracy”'

 

= A contradiction in terms

My advice to you would be to stop guessing about things.
 

Making stuff up and then insisting that you are right and that everyone else is wrong, is not an edifying spectacle.

 

Here. This is nice and short and easy to read. There are links at the end so that you can find out more. 
 

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

Edited July 19, 2022 by sibon

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, sibon said:

My advice to you would be to stop guessing about things.
 

Making stuff up and then insisting that you are right and that everyone else is wrong, is not an edifying spectacle.

 

Here. This is nice and short and easy to read. There are links at the end so that you can find out more. 
 

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

Where the preferred forums for selection were held, at least two members from the list were put to every open primary, and where these were not held the A-list were recommended directly, particularly to the top target seats.

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

 

They were not selected, they were put on a list to be put to the local party. Even that is too much like discrimination for me (Thatcher and Theresa  May did not need all that "social engineering"), but at least it's no where near as bad as the Labour party forcing all women short lists on local parties. That really is Local democracy in action (not).

 

So, stop exaggerating weak arguments because you're losing.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Chekhov

[RJRB]

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

Where the preferred forums for selection were held, at least two members from the list were put to every open primary, and where these were not held the A-list were recommended directly, particularly to the top target seats.

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

 

They were not selected, they were put on a list to be put to the local party. Even that is too much like discrimination for me (Thatcher and Theresa  May did not need all that "social engineering"), but at least it's no where near as bad as the Labour party forcing all women short lists on local parties. That really is Local democracy in action (not).

 

So, stop exaggerating weak arguments because you're losing.

Once you have a fixed idea in your head you double down to the point where any truth is completely submerged in a welter of twisted logic.

If you fail to recognise that positive discrimination has always existed and has accelerated to include gender,disability,ethnicity,sexuality etc.etc. THen you are deluded.

Your effort to differentiate on a political basis does not hold water .

[Guest sibon]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Where the preferred forums for selection were held, at least two members from the list were put to every open primary, and where these were not held the A-list were recommended directly, particularly to the top target seats.

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

 

They were not selected, they were put on a list to be put to the local party. Even that is too much like discrimination for me (Thatcher and Theresa  May did not need all that "social engineering"), but at least it's no where near as bad as the Labour party forcing all women short lists on local parties. That really is Local democracy in action (not).

 

So, stop exaggerating weak arguments because you're losing.

I wasn’t trying to “win” an argument. I was suggesting that you educate yourself properly about the matter.

 

I also, rather helpfully, supplied you with a simple, concise starting point for your voyage of discovery.

 

I see that you’ve chosen to keep your mind closed. That’s a shame.

[Chekhov]

15 minutes ago, sibon said:

I wasn’t trying to “win” an argument. I was suggesting that you educate yourself properly about the matter.

 

I also, rather helpfully, supplied you with a simple, concise starting point for your voyage of discovery.

 

I see that you’ve chosen to keep your mind closed. That’s a shame.

No, I pointed out you were exaggerating your point :

 

Where the preferred forums for selection were held, at least two members from the list were put to every open primary, and where these were not held the A-list were recommended directly, particularly to the top target seats.

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

 

They were not selected, they were put on a list to be put to the local party.

[RJRB]

17 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

No, I pointed out you were exaggerating your point :

 

Where the preferred forums for selection were held, at least two members from the list were put to every open primary, and where these were not held the A-list were recommended directly, particularly to the top target seats.

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

 

They were not selected, they were put on a list to be put to the local party.

So there was direction as a matter of policy from on high.

Why keep squirming?

[Guest sibon]

33 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

No, I pointed out you were exaggerating your point :

 

Where the preferred forums for selection were held, at least two members from the list were put to every open primary, and where these were not held the A-list were recommended directly, particularly to the top target seats.

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

 

They were not selected, they were put on a list to be put to the local party.

As you wish.

 

Have a nice afternoon .