Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 19:35:53 GMT
I mean that there may be people who may not have what is usually referred to as 'black' skin but still form part of ethnic minorities. We are back to me being asked to justify something that Oldie said, simply no. It's for him to demonstrate what these community groups are, who monitors them to ensure they are effective, how they are funded, whether people who engage are in fact motivated to serve at a national level or would rather deal with issues more locally, I could go on and on. He's made the statement, it's his responsibility to explain it, if he can, but it's beginning to look like it was just a lazy swipe at the establishment, I think the modern term is 'Virtue signalling' and he's not able to demonstrate that what he wrote has any validity at all. One final point, a question for you if I may? It's probably crudely put and maybe ill formed, but would you need to be from an ethnic minority to represent the interests of that demographic? Not asking you to justify anything, just trying to clarify where the discrepancy lies, whether it was the underrepresentation element (which is a fact) or whether people from BAME backgrounds feel unrepresented (something a little more subjective, although anecdotally seems to be the case). Turning to your question to me, MPs are there to represent their constituency so no, in general. However the statement was about whether their constituents feel represented which is a dfferent proposition. It's actually getting interesting now, so thanks for the reply. Now we have the issue of our system of political representation and we are back to equality of opportunity. If that's what we are arguing for here then I'm stood shoulder-to-shoulder with you, if we are arguing for equality of outcome then someone is going to have to sell that concept to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 19:50:41 GMT
At last I am quoted "Moving along, there are a decent spattering (sic) of ethnic minorities in Parliament (too low). Ask any ethnic minority group whether they feel represented... either locally or nationally, or whether they think their representatives are empowered." So, in my opinion ethnic minorities are under represented in Parliament. From the BBC analysis after the last election "One in ten of the 650 MPs elected this year are non-white. Ten years ago just one in 40 MPs was non-white, according to research by the independent think tank British Future. There are 13 more non-white MPs than in the last Parliament, but all represent English seats. There are no black, Asian and minority ethnic MPs in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland." So 10%. At the last census ((2011) of the England & Wales population 80% were identified as "White British" So 20% not. So my (albeit a personal opinion and observation) was reasonably accurate. Moving along to my question, and it was a question posed within the confines of the discussion at that point, I do feel that the recent demonstrations over "Black Lives Matter", the broader debate over our history, does suggest (I say suggest) that many (and not just ethnic minorities, to add a bit of fuel) do not feel their views,the realities of their lives, are indeed represented. These are my views which I believe have a reasonable basis. For the life of me I do not see these views as inflammatory (William Wilson) nor warrant the relentless trolling over two forums by Bamber Gasgroin). All Gasgroin has done is divert a reasonable discussion into acrimony. So shoot my views down and that's fair enough. But can we cut the crap? Like I said the trolling is not normal behaviour for a grown man. OK, so at last we have a discussion, thank you. But you still have all of your work ahead of you to demonstrate that any group has not been provided with equality of opportunity for representation. I think we probably have the same data source, so given our electoral system, looking at the demographic table below, what representation would you expect to see? UK Region ‡White British population Percentage of local population Year Northern Ireland 1,738,604 96.0% 2011[3] Scotland 4,863,000 91.9% 2011[2] Wales 2,855,450 93.2% 2011[1] North East England 2,431,423 93.6% 2011[1] South West England 4,855,676 91.8% 2011[1] North West England 6,141,069 87.1% 2011[1] Yorkshire and the Humber 4,531,137 85.8% 2011[1] East of England 4,986,170 85.3% 2011[1] East Midlands 3,871,146 85.4% 2011[1] South East England 7,358,998 85.2% 2011[1] West Midlands 4,434,333 79.2% 2011[1] Greater London 3,669,284 44.9% 2011[1] |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 19:58:39 GMT
At last I am quoted "Moving along, there are a decent spattering (sic) of ethnic minorities in Parliament (too low). Ask any ethnic minority group whether they feel represented... either locally or nationally, or whether they think their representatives are empowered." So, in my opinion ethnic minorities are under represented in Parliament. From the BBC analysis after the last election "One in ten of the 650 MPs elected this year are non-white. Ten years ago just one in 40 MPs was non-white, according to research by the independent think tank British Future. There are 13 more non-white MPs than in the last Parliament, but all represent English seats. There are no black, Asian and minority ethnic MPs in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland." So 10%. At the last census ((2011) of the England & Wales population 80% were identified as "White British" So 20% not. So my (albeit a personal opinion and observation) was reasonably accurate. Moving along to my question, and it was a question posed within the confines of the discussion at that point, I do feel that the recent demonstrations over "Black Lives Matter", the broader debate over our history, does suggest (I say suggest) that many (and not just ethnic minorities, to add a bit of fuel) do not feel their views,the realities of their lives, are indeed represented. These are my views which I believe have a reasonable basis. For the life of me I do not see these views as inflammatory (William Wilson) nor warrant the relentless trolling over two forums by Bamber Gasgroin). All Gasgroin has done is divert a reasonable discussion into acrimony. So shoot my views down and that's fair enough. But can we cut the crap? Like I said the trolling is not normal behaviour for a grown man. OK, so at last we have a discussion, thank you. But you still have all of your work ahead of you to demonstrate that any group has not been provided with equality of opportunity for representation. I think we probably have the same data source, so given our electoral system, looking at the demographic table below, what representation would you expect to see? UK Region ‡White British population Percentage of local population Year Northern Ireland 1,738,604 96.0% 2011[3] Scotland 4,863,000 91.9% 2011[2] Wales 2,855,450 93.2% 2011[1] North East England 2,431,423 93.6% 2011[1] South West England 4,855,676 91.8% 2011[1] North West England 6,141,069 87.1% 2011[1] Yorkshire and the Humber 4,531,137 85.8% 2011[1] East of England 4,986,170 85.3% 2011[1] East Midlands 3,871,146 85.4% 2011[1] South East England 7,358,998 85.2% 2011[1] West Midlands 4,434,333 79.2% 2011[1] Greater London 3,669,284 44.9% 2011[1] Where have I claimed a lack of opportunity? You have added that, per norm. It's just the reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jun 20, 2020 20:14:18 GMT
Nobby was willing to debate across multitude of threads about different things, Jung has declined that until Oldie has proved his point which perhaps shows his motivation. For me things got out of hand before and I had called for calm, which was ignored before coming to a head. As far as anything posted on here, I take the view that until there is evidence then it remains an opinion and should be seen in that light regardless of how it is presented. Fwiw I disagree with the premise of institutions being racist/sexist/etc as they are in general neutral, it is the people within them making decisions that are biased for or against certain elements of society. That's not quite correct. I've invited OB to nominate a subject for discussion, I'm not sure he's going to accept though and have contributed to the thread about Wael's statement yesterday. I'm up for a natter, all I'm not super keen on is getting dragged off of the simple question that Oldie was asked, or having it turned around somehow into a question for me to answer. Normally, you would join a particular thread and contribute to the discussion on the topic in the thread title. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 20:38:45 GMT
OK, so at last we have a discussion, thank you. But you still have all of your work ahead of you to demonstrate that any group has not been provided with equality of opportunity for representation. I think we probably have the same data source, so given our electoral system, looking at the demographic table below, what representation would you expect to see? UK Region ‡White British population Percentage of local population Year Northern Ireland 1,738,604 96.0% 2011[3] Scotland 4,863,000 91.9% 2011[2] Wales 2,855,450 93.2% 2011[1] North East England 2,431,423 93.6% 2011[1] South West England 4,855,676 91.8% 2011[1] North West England 6,141,069 87.1% 2011[1] Yorkshire and the Humber 4,531,137 85.8% 2011[1] East of England 4,986,170 85.3% 2011[1] East Midlands 3,871,146 85.4% 2011[1] South East England 7,358,998 85.2% 2011[1] West Midlands 4,434,333 79.2% 2011[1] Greater London 3,669,284 44.9% 2011[1] Where have I claimed a lack of opportunity? You have added that, per norm. It's just the reality. OK, fair enough, let's not get off on the wrong foot here. So help me understand what the problem is in your opinion please and relate it to those population figures. BTW, equality of opportunity is, I think the better expression, rather than 'lack' of opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 20, 2020 20:46:32 GMT
Not asking you to justify anything, just trying to clarify where the discrepancy lies, whether it was the underrepresentation element (which is a fact) or whether people from BAME backgrounds feel unrepresented (something a little more subjective, although anecdotally seems to be the case). Turning to your question to me, MPs are there to represent their constituency so no, in general. However the statement was about whether their constituents feel represented which is a dfferent proposition. It's actually getting interesting now, so thanks for the reply. Now we have the issue of our system of political representation and we are back to equality of opportunity. If that's what we are arguing for here then I'm stood shoulder-to-shoulder with you, if we are arguing for equality of outcome then someone is going to have to sell that concept to me. I used to be against positive discrimination, I still remember debates at school where the teacher was very much in favour, in that particular debate, on women getting key jobs. The funny thing was it was the girls in the class who were most against it. However, as time went by I started to appreciate the benefits of having to force the issue and the all women short lists helped. They still don't represent proportionately the levels in the country, something like a third at the moment compared to over half. The proportion of BAME MPs should be about 20%, but is only 10%. The question is why, is it lack of opportunity or is it something which prevents them. MPs are mostly from one of the main parties and many are in safe seats. Only a couple of hundred change at a GE. Of those candidates, they are selected by a few constituency members from a few people. Unless they are 'encouraged' to choose then law of averages would mean that the majority will be those engaged in politics and affiliated to that party. Any middle of the road person will be squeezed out, either during selection of candidates or if they stand as an independent, by the electoral system. The answer is in part, to encourage more to register with their party, which is fine if there is one they can affilate with. Until the system changes, we are stuck with a choice of two or three candidates in any constituency. No real choice. If you don't feel engaged in politics then you won't be wanting to take part. If one of the causes of that is being disenfranchised because you feel unrepresented then that is a turn off. Equality of opportunity is the target and opportunity of outcome the measurement. Sometimes it is necessary to work backwards to get to the goal. The more seen in parliament and in government and actively promoting issues, the more people will be willing to engage and to get the numbers applying in the first place. How many times have there been stories of lack of role models? Same in politics. Things are improving but very slowly and as a short term solution, I'd encourage it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 20:52:31 GMT
It's actually getting interesting now, so thanks for the reply. Now we have the issue of our system of political representation and we are back to equality of opportunity. If that's what we are arguing for here then I'm stood shoulder-to-shoulder with you, if we are arguing for equality of outcome then someone is going to have to sell that concept to me. I used to be against positive discrimination, I still remember debates at school where the teacher was very much in favour, in that particular debate, on women getting key jobs. The funny thing was it was the girls in the class who were most against it. However, as time went by I started to appreciate the benefits of having to force the issue and the all women short lists helped. They still don't represent proportionately the levels in the country, something like a third at the moment compared to over half. The proportion of BAME MPs should be about 20%, but is only 10%. The question is why, is it lack of opportunity or is it something which prevents them. MPs are mostly from one of the main parties and many are in safe seats. Only a couple of hundred change at a GE. Of those candidates, they are selected by a few constituency members from a few people. Unless they are 'encouraged' to choose then law of averages would mean that the majority will be those engaged in politics and affiliated to that party. Any middle of the road person will be squeezed out, either during selection of candidates or if they stand as an independent, by the electoral system. The answer is in part, to encourage more to register with their party, which is fine if there is one they can affilate with. Until the system changes, we are stuck with a choice of two or three candidates in any constituency. No real choice. If you don't feel engaged in politics then you won't be wanting to take part. If one of the causes of that is being disenfranchised because you feel unrepresented then that is a turn off. Equality of opportunity is the target and opportunity of outcome the measurement. Sometimes it is necessary to work backwards to get to the goal. The more seen in parliament and in government and actively promoting issues, the more people will be willing to engage and to get the numbers applying in the first place. How many times have there been stories of lack of role models? Same in politics. Things are improving but very slowly and as a short term solution, I'd encourage it. One point at a time if that's OK. Are you saying that you want equality of outcome based on gender for political representation? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 20:53:34 GMT
Get a room
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 20, 2020 21:09:56 GMT
I used to be against positive discrimination, I still remember debates at school where the teacher was very much in favour, in that particular debate, on women getting key jobs. The funny thing was it was the girls in the class who were most against it. However, as time went by I started to appreciate the benefits of having to force the issue and the all women short lists helped. They still don't represent proportionately the levels in the country, something like a third at the moment compared to over half. The proportion of BAME MPs should be about 20%, but is only 10%. The question is why, is it lack of opportunity or is it something which prevents them. MPs are mostly from one of the main parties and many are in safe seats. Only a couple of hundred change at a GE. Of those candidates, they are selected by a few constituency members from a few people. Unless they are 'encouraged' to choose then law of averages would mean that the majority will be those engaged in politics and affiliated to that party. Any middle of the road person will be squeezed out, either during selection of candidates or if they stand as an independent, by the electoral system. The answer is in part, to encourage more to register with their party, which is fine if there is one they can affilate with. Until the system changes, we are stuck with a choice of two or three candidates in any constituency. No real choice. If you don't feel engaged in politics then you won't be wanting to take part. If one of the causes of that is being disenfranchised because you feel unrepresented then that is a turn off. Equality of opportunity is the target and opportunity of outcome the measurement. Sometimes it is necessary to work backwards to get to the goal. The more seen in parliament and in government and actively promoting issues, the more people will be willing to engage and to get the numbers applying in the first place. How many times have there been stories of lack of role models? Same in politics. Things are improving but very slowly and as a short term solution, I'd encourage it. One point at a time if that's OK. Are you saying that you want equality of outcome based on gender for political representation? The topic is about whether people from the BAME community feel represented or not with the subquestion of whether parliament needs to be more representative. I was pointing out that there is not really an equal opportunity to be an MP in the first place, the theory and reality are very different. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 21:27:56 GMT
One point at a time if that's OK. Are you saying that you want equality of outcome based on gender for political representation? The topic is about whether people from the BAME community feel represented or not with the subquestion of whether parliament needs to be more representative. I was pointing out that there is not really an equal opportunity to be an MP in the first place, the theory and reality are very different. Well, OK, you brought up gender, so I asked the question. Hopefully we'll get somewhere with this when Oldie takes a look at that (admittedly a bit dated) demographic list and replies to us. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jun 20, 2020 21:57:25 GMT
The topic is about whether people from the BAME community feel represented or not with the subquestion of whether parliament needs to be more representative. I was pointing out that there is not really an equal opportunity to be an MP in the first place, the theory and reality are very different. Well, OK, you brought up gender, so I asked the question. Hopefully we'll get somewhere with this when Oldie takes a look at that (admittedly a bit dated) demographic list and replies to us. This lockdown must be getting to you. You're beginning to sound a bit obsessed by the poster rather than the subject. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 22:15:06 GMT
Well, OK, you brought up gender, so I asked the question. Hopefully we'll get somewhere with this when Oldie takes a look at that (admittedly a bit dated) demographic list and replies to us. This lockdown must be getting to you. You're beginning to sound a bit obsessed by the poster rather than the subject. Don't think so, it was his original assertion, he's the person who made reference to representation in certain areas, so I gave him a demographic breakdown list, I'm sure he'll take a look at it when he has time and give us his thoughts. Seems reasonable to me. And I've just had a perfectly civil little exchange with Stuart. Gassy and OB have had replies from me today, now we are talking, it's all been quite enjoyable. I'm not just sat here flaming Oldie. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 20, 2020 22:32:37 GMT
I’m still not seeing where Oldie actually said what you’ve claimed he did though. I looked on page 28 as you suggested and there was nothing of the sort? I’m starting to wonder if he actually said what you’ve described tbh. Could you please quote it? Sure; So, he's stated that the number of people from ethnic minorities in Parliament is too low and that minority groups are not represented or empowered. We can look at the demographic of those minority groups and their representatives if you like, but we both know what we'll see. So he's said that skin colour is, somehow, a barrier to representation and empowerment. That's all I've asked him to explain. Of course there are some minority groups, such as Romas who may cloud that issue, but I think we have enough here for him to have a positive statement to defend. If he didn't mean skin colour all he had to do was correct me several days ago, it wouldn't have been difficult, I would have thanked him for the clarification and moved on. But at least we've gone over the burden of proof, but looking at his last post it doesn't appear that Oldie has grasped it yet. Tbh, that isn't actually quoting the point you were saying at all. Saying that 'BAME aren't represented enough' Vs 'skin colour is a direct barrier to progress in politics' are very, very different things. If you're going to be so specific on a point, then that point really needs to be as specific as you're making out, which it's not. You've developed what you believe he was saying and then are questioning that. I thought your point would be stronger tbh. Anyway, looks like you've got your debate now. And regarding Stuart's point on you not debating on other subjects. I couldn't disagree more. I had attempted to open debate with you, but you refused as you believed it was talking about a point in which I'm getting you to defend. It wasn't, I was asking you a question & attempting to debate as you had wanted. But tbh in hindsight, I'm glad we didn't enter debate as the new Rovers news has taken over much of my thoughts & time  |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 20, 2020 22:37:04 GMT
The topic is about whether people from the BAME community feel represented or not with the subquestion of whether parliament needs to be more representative. I was pointing out that there is not really an equal opportunity to be an MP in the first place, the theory and reality are very different. Well, OK, you brought up gender, so I asked the question. Hopefully we'll get somewhere with this when Oldie takes a look at that (admittedly a bit dated) demographic list and replies to us. I think Stuart made some excellent points (and fair play to him for writing all that on a mobile, I'd get too frustrated doing it on a smart device) and you've brushed aside his entire post and brought up gender, when I think we all know that isn't the main point he's making. It's only fair that if you're debating with him on the subject, you follow up on that? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 20, 2020 23:03:32 GMT
The topic is about whether people from the BAME community feel represented or not with the subquestion of whether parliament needs to be more representative. I was pointing out that there is not really an equal opportunity to be an MP in the first place, the theory and reality are very different. Well, OK, you brought up gender, so I asked the question. Hopefully we'll get somewhere with this when Oldie takes a look at that (admittedly a bit dated) demographic list and replies to us. Not a problem, I brought up gender purely as a bit of background to my thoughts, not as a debate in its own right. The outcome I want is a situation where it doesn't matter with people having confidence in MPs and Parliament working for them, we have a lot of work to do first in actuality and confidence building. Having a cross section of representation will be just a start. You'll have to forgive me as your reputation precedes you and I don't want to get drawn away from the subject in hand. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 20, 2020 23:08:42 GMT
At last I am quoted "Moving along, there are a decent spattering (sic) of ethnic minorities in Parliament (too low). Ask any ethnic minority group whether they feel represented... either locally or nationally, or whether they think their representatives are empowered." So, in my opinion ethnic minorities are under represented in Parliament. From the BBC analysis after the last election "One in ten of the 650 MPs elected this year are non-white. Ten years ago just one in 40 MPs was non-white, according to research by the independent think tank British Future. There are 13 more non-white MPs than in the last Parliament, but all represent English seats. There are no black, Asian and minority ethnic MPs in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland." So 10%. At the last census ((2011) of the England & Wales population 80% were identified as "White British" So 20% not. So my (albeit a personal opinion and observation) was reasonably accurate. Moving along to my question, and it was a question posed within the confines of the discussion at that point, I do feel that the recent demonstrations over "Black Lives Matter", the broader debate over our history, does suggest (I say suggest) that many (and not just ethnic minorities, to add a bit of fuel) do not feel their views,the realities of their lives, are indeed represented. These are my views which I believe have a reasonable basis. For the life of me I do not see these views as inflammatory (William Wilson) nor warrant the relentless trolling over two forums by Bamber Gasgroin). All Gasgroin has done is divert a reasonable discussion into acrimony. So shoot my views down and that's fair enough. But can we cut the crap? Like I said the trolling is not normal behaviour for a grown man. OK, so at last we have a discussion, thank you. But you still have all of your work ahead of you to demonstrate that any group has not been provided with equality of opportunity for representation. I think we probably have the same data source, so given our electoral system, looking at the demographic table below, what representation would you expect to see? UK Region ‡White British population Percentage of local population Year Northern Ireland 1,738,604 96.0% 2011[3] Scotland 4,863,000 91.9% 2011[2] Wales 2,855,450 93.2% 2011[1] North East England 2,431,423 93.6% 2011[1] South West England 4,855,676 91.8% 2011[1] North West England 6,141,069 87.1% 2011[1] Yorkshire and the Humber 4,531,137 85.8% 2011[1] East of England 4,986,170 85.3% 2011[1] East Midlands 3,871,146 85.4% 2011[1] South East England 7,358,998 85.2% 2011[1] West Midlands 4,434,333 79.2% 2011[1] Greater London 3,669,284 44.9% 2011[1] MPs aren't elected by region. Can you break that down by constituency? |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 21, 2020 0:06:41 GMT
It's actually getting interesting now, so thanks for the reply. Now we have the issue of our system of political representation and we are back to equality of opportunity. If that's what we are arguing for here then I'm stood shoulder-to-shoulder with you, if we are arguing for equality of outcome then someone is going to have to sell that concept to me. I used to be against positive discrimination, I still remember debates at school where the teacher was very much in favour, in that particular debate, on women getting key jobs. The funny thing was it was the girls in the class who were most against it. However, as time went by I started to appreciate the benefits of having to force the issue and the all women short lists helped. They still don't represent proportionately the levels in the country, something like a third at the moment compared to over half.The proportion of BAME MPs should be about 20%, but is only 10%. The question is why, is it lack of opportunity or is it something which prevents them. MPs are mostly from one of the main parties and many are in safe seats. Only a couple of hundred change at a GE. Of those candidates, they are selected by a few constituency members from a few people. Unless they are 'encouraged' to choose then law of averages would mean that the majority will be those engaged in politics and affiliated to that party. Any middle of the road person will be squeezed out, either during selection of candidates or if they stand as an independent, by the electoral system. The answer is in part, to encourage more to register with their party, which is fine if there is one they can affilate with. Until the system changes, we are stuck with a choice of two or three candidates in any constituency. No real choice. If you don't feel engaged in politics then you won't be wanting to take part. If one of the causes of that is being disenfranchised because you feel unrepresented then that is a turn off. Equality of opportunity is the target and opportunity of outcome the measurement. Sometimes it is necessary to work backwards to get to the goal. The more seen in parliament and in government and actively promoting issues, the more people will be willing to engage and to get the numbers applying in the first place. How many times have there been stories of lack of role models? Same in politics. Things are improving but very slowly and as a short term solution, I'd encourage it. Maybe I am misunderstanding but by the highlighted text are you suggesting quotas? What happened to the best person gets the job? We've both worked for our present company for many years and I can still clearly remember the utter mess that arose in the late 80's/early 90's when our employer in a previous guise decided to follow the Govt directive of the time and introduced quotas. We were already a multi cultural employer but there was positive discrimination employed in favour of BAME or whatever the phrase was at the time. It didn't work, good candidates got passed over and people were taken on that really weren't suitable and then left of their own accord or were relieved of duty. The point is quotas don't solve the issue and I thought positive discrimination is banned under the Equality Act 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 21, 2020 0:22:01 GMT
I used to be against positive discrimination, I still remember debates at school where the teacher was very much in favour, in that particular debate, on women getting key jobs. The funny thing was it was the girls in the class who were most against it. However, as time went by I started to appreciate the benefits of having to force the issue and the all women short lists helped. They still don't represent proportionately the levels in the country, something like a third at the moment compared to over half.The proportion of BAME MPs should be about 20%, but is only 10%. The question is why, is it lack of opportunity or is it something which prevents them. MPs are mostly from one of the main parties and many are in safe seats. Only a couple of hundred change at a GE. Of those candidates, they are selected by a few constituency members from a few people. Unless they are 'encouraged' to choose then law of averages would mean that the majority will be those engaged in politics and affiliated to that party. Any middle of the road person will be squeezed out, either during selection of candidates or if they stand as an independent, by the electoral system. The answer is in part, to encourage more to register with their party, which is fine if there is one they can affilate with. Until the system changes, we are stuck with a choice of two or three candidates in any constituency. No real choice. If you don't feel engaged in politics then you won't be wanting to take part. If one of the causes of that is being disenfranchised because you feel unrepresented then that is a turn off. Equality of opportunity is the target and opportunity of outcome the measurement. Sometimes it is necessary to work backwards to get to the goal. The more seen in parliament and in government and actively promoting issues, the more people will be willing to engage and to get the numbers applying in the first place. How many times have there been stories of lack of role models? Same in politics. Things are improving but very slowly and as a short term solution, I'd encourage it. Maybe I am misunderstanding but by the highlighted text are you suggesting quotas? What happened to the best person gets the job? We've both worked for our present company for many years and I can still clearly remember the utter mess that arose in the late 80's/early 90's when our employer in a previous guise decided to follow the Govt directive of the time and introduced quotas. We were already a multi cultural employer but there was positive discrimination employed in favour of BAME or whatever the phrase was at the time. It didn't work, good candidates got passed over and people were taken on that really weren't suitable and then left of their own accord or were relieved of duty. The point is quotas don't solve the issue and I thought positive discrimination is banned under the Equality Act 2010.
I was referring to parliament and how it helped get more women into politics by having all women short lists. Wasn't keen at the time but it did get better representation. No, I don't want quotas. Whether the Rooney Law would help. Don't know, just making a suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 21, 2020 0:23:04 GMT
Thought provoking?
|
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 21, 2020 0:24:24 GMT
Maybe I am misunderstanding but by the highlighted text are you suggesting quotas? What happened to the best person gets the job? We've both worked for our present company for many years and I can still clearly remember the utter mess that arose in the late 80's/early 90's when our employer in a previous guise decided to follow the Govt directive of the time and introduced quotas. We were already a multi cultural employer but there was positive discrimination employed in favour of BAME or whatever the phrase was at the time. It didn't work, good candidates got passed over and people were taken on that really weren't suitable and then left of their own accord or were relieved of duty. The point is quotas don't solve the issue and I thought positive discrimination is banned under the Equality Act 2010.
I was referring to parliament and how it helped get more women into politics by having all women short lists. Wasn't keen at the time but it did get better representation. No, I don't want quotas. Whether the Rooney Law would help. Don't know, just making a suggestion. Fair enough. Guess I misunderstood. |
|
