stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,563 
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 21, 2020 0:39:07 GMT
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. Maybe, that's the problem with social media, things can be badly written or misread, then before you know it things get conflated. What were we taught? Only about 7% of communication is the actual words used, the rest is body language and verbal tone. Neither of which can be understood on a forum. Hope you are feeling better, I presume the vet is happy. |
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Jun 21, 2020 6:28:09 GMT
Become hilarious? Jung has come on here, in a sober and reasonable manner, and invited you to defend the position that you took. And, instead, you quote a 14 th century poet. Been at the old Chateau Croesus again? I don`t know what your problem with Jung is. He doesn`t seem to bear you any animus, despite you losing your temper, and resorting to calling him names. Do you prefer the car crash that the Corona virus thread descended into, rather than the civilised exchange of facts that Jung has asked for? You said that you can`t see your original assertion is inflammatory. In this day and age, I`d say that asserting that people are being denied equal opportunity ( at least in the political sphere ) because of skin colour, is as inflammatory as it gets. It`s the sort of rhetoric that demagogues the world over, use to inflame passions. If you believe it what you wrote, then take up Jung`s offer to prove it. If there`s something not right about him, or his argument, I`m sure we`ll all soon see it. Just do it! If you are so upset by what I had previously wrote, why didn't you pick me up on it at the time? I don't recall you being barred from doing so? But now's your opportunity, given that you did not take up that opportunity first time around. Pick up what I said, quote it and show me where I am wrong. Easy peasy and no need to hide behind Bambers skirt. Because what you previously wrote, was on the other forum. Which I haven`t been on since Oldie was Jungie. You`re the one who started this, by asserting that BAME are denied equal opportunities in British politics. Up to you to show us you`re right. To be fair, I see you`ve finally taken up Jung`s invitation to attempt to do this. If you`ll excuse me, I`ll check it all out in a couple of hours. It`s a lovely day out there, and I`m more inclined to situate my arse on the saddle of my trusty old Cannondale, than my computer seat right now. And I`m not hiding behind anybody`s skirt. You`re just trying to insult your way out of the hole that you`ve dug for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 21, 2020 8:10:01 GMT
If you are so upset by what I had previously wrote, why didn't you pick me up on it at the time? I don't recall you being barred from doing so? But now's your opportunity, given that you did not take up that opportunity first time around. Pick up what I said, quote it and show me where I am wrong. Easy peasy and no need to hide behind Bambers skirt. Because what you previously wrote, was on the other forum. Which I haven`t been on since Oldie was Jungie. You`re the one who started this, by asserting that BAME are denied equal opportunities in British politics. Up to you to show us you`re right. To be fair, I see you`ve finally taken up Jung`s invitation to attempt to do this. If you`ll excuse me, I`ll check it all out in a couple of hours. It`s a lovely day out there, and I`m more inclined to situate my arse on the saddle of my trusty old Cannondale, than my computer seat right now. And I`m not hiding behind anybody`s skirt. You`re just trying to insult your way out of the hole that you`ve dug for yourself. Where has Oldie said BAME are denied lack of opportunity? Please quote it. On the last page, Oldie himself said ‘where have I said denied lack of opportunity’. Jung then replied ‘ok fair enough’. As we’ve established, the proof of burden is first for you to quote and show where Oldie has stated this. I would also be interested, at some point, to see what Oldie said on the other forum that offended and upset you so much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 8:21:49 GMT
Because what you previously wrote, was on the other forum. Which I haven`t been on since Oldie was Jungie. You`re the one who started this, by asserting that BAME are denied equal opportunities in British politics. Up to you to show us you`re right. To be fair, I see you`ve finally taken up Jung`s invitation to attempt to do this. If you`ll excuse me, I`ll check it all out in a couple of hours. It`s a lovely day out there, and I`m more inclined to situate my arse on the saddle of my trusty old Cannondale, than my computer seat right now. And I`m not hiding behind anybody`s skirt. You`re just trying to insult your way out of the hole that you`ve dug for yourself. Where has Oldie said BAME are denied lack of opportunity? Please quote it. On the last page, Oldie himself said ‘where have I said denied lack of opportunity’. Jung then replied ‘ok fair enough’. As we’ve established, the proof of burden is first for you to quote and show where Oldie has stated this. I would also be interested, at some point, to see what Oldie said on the other forum that offended and upset you so much. Taking this to an aside a little, that is moving away from the topic, I do find it a little strange that people are following my comments on another forum, not raising their objections there, but then jumping in when Bamber makes that jump. As Gassy points out my comments on this thread are there for all to see and when actually quoted rather bursts the balloon of invective. As an aside, I find the psychology in this quite interesting. But that's something else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 8:52:29 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] MPs aren't elected by region. Can you break that down by constituency? No I can't, sorry. But it did feed in to a specific point that Oldie made. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 9:04:58 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] MPs aren't elected by region. Can you break that down by constituency? Indeed. So in response to Bamber, mine was a broad stroke over the country where at the last census there appears to be a 80/20 White British / Ethnic Minority self identification. In Parliament it appears to be 90/10. Crude? Perhaps. Of course I accept the regional breakdown posted by Bamber (without checking but I have no reason to) but that doesn't change the overall picture. Developing Stuart's point on theory Vs reality I believe this is the crux of the matter, developing this beyond the confines of ethnic minorities. My opinion is that we have a deeply flawed democratic system. This has resulted in the creation of a "political class" where certain educational institutions and professions dominate both the members of our executive and the civil service. This in itself is an invisible barrier to ethnic minorities when you look at their representation at both those educational institutions and professions. Developing this point further there is also the issue over candidate selection by the political parties. Let me say at the outset that in my experience there is no barrier to anyone joining a party. It's the selection process for a candidate to stand that this invisible barrier kicks in. My personal experience, which may I add is now 22 years ago, was disheartening for someone who believes in local democracy and activism. Candidates are encouraged to come forward by the local party committee and subject to interview by that committee and a select group of members. On paper that sounds perfectly fine but the committees' tend to be populated by long term members of the party, some going back decades, who bring all their own ageing views which rarely reflect what is happening in their local communities. But then it gets worse, the candidate then has to be "approved" by the regional party with a designated point person to ensure the candidate will follow the party line. Like I said that was my experience but it was 22 years ago and perhaps things have improved / changed. However looking at the Tories, looking at the Stalinist attempt by the Labour Party under Corbyn to "vet" it's membership and elected representatives, I think not. In all this then I think it's fair to say ethnic minorities are under represented, that a significant proportion of the general population is under represented. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 9:09:24 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. 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? Follow up on what, there were multiple points made there. I think the main thrust of it was equality of outcome being promoted and manifesting itself in, by his figures, circa 20% representation in The House of Commons. Is that what you want to discuss? |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 21, 2020 10:00:06 GMT
Fair enough. Guess I misunderstood. Maybe, that's the problem with social media, things can be badly written or misread, then before you know it things get conflated. What were we taught? Only about 7% of communication is the actual words used, the rest is body language and verbal tone. Neither of which can be understood on a forum. Hope you are feeling better, I presume the vet is happy. Not really Stuart. Still waiting for a letter from the hospital. As they didn't have a theatre slot available at the time I am now in the system. Meanwhile things can only get worse. Ho hum. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Jun 21, 2020 10:05:23 GMT
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Jun 21, 2020 10:05:27 GMT
MPs aren't elected by region. Can you break that down by constituency? Indeed. So in response to Bamber, mine was a broad stroke over the country where at the last census there appears to be a 80/20 White British / Ethnic Minority self identification. In Parliament it appears to be 90/10. Crude? Perhaps. Of course I accept the regional breakdown posted by Bamber (without checking but I have no reason to) but that doesn't change the overall picture. Developing Stuart's point on theory Vs reality I believe this is the crux of the matter, developing this beyond the confines of ethnic minorities. My opinion is that we have a deeply flawed democratic system. This has resulted in the creation of a "political class" where certain educational institutions and professions dominate both the members of our executive and the civil service. This in itself is an invisible barrier to ethnic minorities when you look at their representation at both those educational institutions and professions. Developing this point further there is also the issue over candidate selection by the political parties. Let me say at the outset that in my experience there is no barrier to anyone joining a party. It's the selection process for a candidate to stand that this invisible barrier kicks in. My personal experience, which may I add is now 22 years ago, was disheartening for someone who believes in local democracy and activism. Candidates are encouraged to come forward by the local party committee and subject to interview by that committee and a select group of members. On paper that sounds perfectly fine but the committees' tend to be populated by long term members of the party, some going back decades, who bring all their own ageing views which rarely reflect what is happening in their local communities. But then it gets worse, the candidate then has to be "approved" by the regional party with a designated point person to ensure the candidate will follow the party line. Like I said that was my experience but it was 22 years ago and perhaps things have improved / changed. However looking at the Tories, looking at the Stalinist attempt by the Labour Party under Corbyn to "vet" it's membership and elected representatives, I think not. In all this then I think it's fair to say ethnic minorities are under represented, that a significant proportion of the general population is under represented. Thankfully I don’t come on this part of the site very often. However, I feel you are being very economic with the facts to suit your agenda. Firstly, if you had really looked at the 2019 breakdown of white/ethnic minority split in the UK Overall the figures are 87.1%/12.9% so representation in Parliament is fairly equitable at around 10%. Where the whole representation figures for UK Government as a whole is blown apart is within The Scottish Assembly @ just 2% representation - Welsh Assembly 3% and the NI Assembly 0%. Further if you look at The London Assembly led by an ethnic minority Mayor the representation Is 28% of 25 members. Just a few figures for you to think about. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 10:09:23 GMT
MPs aren't elected by region. Can you break that down by constituency? Indeed. So in response to Bamber, mine was a broad stroke over the country where at the last census there appears to be a 80/20 White British / Ethnic Minority self identification. In Parliament it appears to be 90/10. Crude? Perhaps. Of course I accept the regional breakdown posted by Bamber (without checking but I have no reason to) but that doesn't change the overall picture. Developing Stuart's point on theory Vs reality I believe this is the crux of the matter, developing this beyond the confines of ethnic minorities. My opinion is that we have a deeply flawed democratic system. This has resulted in the creation of a "political class" where certain educational institutions and professions dominate both the members of our executive and the civil service. This in itself is an invisible barrier to ethnic minorities when you look at their representation at both those educational institutions and professions. Developing this point further there is also the issue over candidate selection by the political parties. Let me say at the outset that in my experience there is no barrier to anyone joining a party. It's the selection process for a candidate to stand that this invisible barrier kicks in. My personal experience, which may I add is now 22 years ago, was disheartening for someone who believes in local democracy and activism. Candidates are encouraged to come forward by the local party committee and subject to interview by that committee and a select group of members. On paper that sounds perfectly fine but the committees' tend to be populated by long term members of the party, some going back decades, who bring all their own ageing views which rarely reflect what is happening in their local communities. But then it gets worse, the candidate then has to be "approved" by the regional party with a designated point person to ensure the candidate will follow the party line. Like I said that was my experience but it was 22 years ago and perhaps things have improved / changed. However looking at the Tories, looking at the Stalinist attempt by the Labour Party under Corbyn to "vet" it's membership and elected representatives, I think not. In all this then I think it's fair to say ethnic minorities are under represented, that a significant proportion of the general population is under represented. You've just described 'an old boys' club', you haven't given anything at all to even suggest racial discrimination specifically. Is there an appetite amongst the BAME community to engage with politics at a national level? This is an important point and goes back to the Scandinavian studies mentioned previously between us. The sort of social engineering that I think is being suggested here doesn't always give the results that you may expect. Yes, the 82/18 (2017 figures are the most recent I can find) split won't be reflected in Parliament, I don't think that we should be surprised by this, there's not much point putting forward a candidate with a passion for farming and rural issues in an inner city area with a high BAME population, hopefully you understand the point there. Roughly 8% of the UK population are EU migrants who are non-UK nationals, but whilst they are here this is their home, so what do we do with them, tell them that they've chosen to come here, sit down and shut up, or try to make the country as welcoming as possible for them, in which case, their views, to some extent, should be considered? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 21, 2020 10:37:45 GMT
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? Follow up on what, there were multiple points made there. I think the main thrust of it was equality of outcome being promoted and manifesting itself in, by his figures, circa 20% representation in The House of Commons. Is that what you want to discuss? Well, I thought you'd follow up on the multiple points he made. Either to agree or disagree. Rather you focused on gender, which we both know wasn't the main topic of his post. You yourself have mentioned quite a few times about getting distracted and going off point. But your reply, was doing exactly that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 10:45:23 GMT
Follow up on what, there were multiple points made there. I think the main thrust of it was equality of outcome being promoted and manifesting itself in, by his figures, circa 20% representation in The House of Commons. Is that what you want to discuss? Well, I thought you'd follow up on the multiple points he made. Either to agree or disagree. Rather you focused on gender, which we both know wasn't the main topic of his post. Please take another look at my reply, I asked if we could go over 1 point at a time, sorry if that wasn't clear. No, I didn't know how important gender was to him. He seemed happy enough with the short exchange that we had off of the back of it. But if you wanted to pick up on one of his points we can investigate that a little. No point trying to discuss 10 points at once, things just get confused and conflated. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 21, 2020 10:54:52 GMT
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. I think this is a really interesting point. We can only think about what we've experienced or thought about. Which is why (as I've said before a couple of weeks ago) critical thinking is vital in the racism discussion, or any inequality really. It's very easy for a white person to say 'I don't think theres much racism'. It's very easy to a man to say 'I don't think theres much sexism'. It's very easy for the wealthy to say 'I don't think theres much poverty'. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 21, 2020 10:57:33 GMT
Well, I thought you'd follow up on the multiple points he made. Either to agree or disagree. Rather you focused on gender, which we both know wasn't the main topic of his post. Please take another look at my reply, I asked if we could go over 1 point at a time, sorry if that wasn't clear. No, I didn't know how important gender was to him. He seemed happy enough with the short exchange that we had off of the back of it. But if you wanted to pick up on one of his points we can investigate that a little. No point trying to discuss 10 points at once, things just get confused and conflated. Yes, and as the point at the time was about BAME, I thought that is what you'd focus on, rather than going into gender. But true, the short exchange was fine - I was just curious to hear your thoughts on his post. Another time then, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Jun 21, 2020 11:02:09 GMT
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. I think this is a really interesting point. We can only think about what we've experienced or thought about. Which is why (as I've said before a couple of weeks ago) critical thinking is vital in the racism discussion, or any inequality really. It's very easy for a white person to say 'I don't think theres much racism'. It's very easy to a man to say 'I don't think theres much sexism'. It's very easy for the wealthy to say 'I don't think theres much poverty'. Thanks pal.
Its th idea that each person who sees a thing will see it filtered through their own perceptions. So none of us really see it objectively -we cant!
Each person sees it with their own beliefs, preconceptions, interpretation, an attitude. So imo you an i cant see things th same, just as a black man cant see as a white man sees an vice versa. I think th typical example is art - i like a piece of art an you Gassy think it its crap. So, in many ways this whole debate will never be concluded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 11:04:36 GMT
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. I think this is a really interesting point. We can only think about what we've experienced or thought about. Which is why (as I've said before a couple of weeks ago) critical thinking is vital in the racism discussion, or any inequality really. It's very easy for a white person to say 'I don't think theres much racism'. It's very easy to a man to say 'I don't think theres much sexism'. It's very easy for the wealthy to say 'I don't think theres much poverty'. Good shout. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 11:05:52 GMT
I think this is a really interesting point. We can only think about what we've experienced or thought about. Which is why (as I've said before a couple of weeks ago) critical thinking is vital in the racism discussion, or any inequality really. It's very easy for a white person to say 'I don't think theres much racism'. It's very easy to a man to say 'I don't think theres much sexism'. It's very easy for the wealthy to say 'I don't think theres much poverty'. Thanks pal.
Its th idea that each person who sees a thing will see it filtered through their own perceptions. So none of us really see it objectively -we cant!
Each person sees it with their own beliefs, preconceptions, interpretation, an attitude. So imo you an i cant see things th same, just as a black man cant see as a white man sees an vice versa. I think th typical example is art - i like a piece of art an you Gassy think it its crap. So, in many ways this whole debate will never be concluded.
It's a very good point Jock and worthy of its own thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 11:27:40 GMT
Please take another look at my reply, I asked if we could go over 1 point at a time, sorry if that wasn't clear. No, I didn't know how important gender was to him. He seemed happy enough with the short exchange that we had off of the back of it. But if you wanted to pick up on one of his points we can investigate that a little. No point trying to discuss 10 points at once, things just get confused and conflated. Yes, and as the point at the time was about BAME, I thought that is what you'd focus on, rather than going into gender. But true, the short exchange was fine - I was just curious to hear your thoughts on his post. Another time then, I guess. Which part of his post, there were multiple points made. He seemed comfortable with where we left it, I felt OK about it, but if you think there's unfinished business there then I'm happy to discuss any of his thoughts with you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 11:30:27 GMT
Indeed. So in response to Bamber, mine was a broad stroke over the country where at the last census there appears to be a 80/20 White British / Ethnic Minority self identification. In Parliament it appears to be 90/10. Crude? Perhaps. Of course I accept the regional breakdown posted by Bamber (without checking but I have no reason to) but that doesn't change the overall picture. Developing Stuart's point on theory Vs reality I believe this is the crux of the matter, developing this beyond the confines of ethnic minorities. My opinion is that we have a deeply flawed democratic system. This has resulted in the creation of a "political class" where certain educational institutions and professions dominate both the members of our executive and the civil service. This in itself is an invisible barrier to ethnic minorities when you look at their representation at both those educational institutions and professions. Developing this point further there is also the issue over candidate selection by the political parties. Let me say at the outset that in my experience there is no barrier to anyone joining a party. It's the selection process for a candidate to stand that this invisible barrier kicks in. My personal experience, which may I add is now 22 years ago, was disheartening for someone who believes in local democracy and activism. Candidates are encouraged to come forward by the local party committee and subject to interview by that committee and a select group of members. On paper that sounds perfectly fine but the committees' tend to be populated by long term members of the party, some going back decades, who bring all their own ageing views which rarely reflect what is happening in their local communities. But then it gets worse, the candidate then has to be "approved" by the regional party with a designated point person to ensure the candidate will follow the party line. Like I said that was my experience but it was 22 years ago and perhaps things have improved / changed. However looking at the Tories, looking at the Stalinist attempt by the Labour Party under Corbyn to "vet" it's membership and elected representatives, I think not. In all this then I think it's fair to say ethnic minorities are under represented, that a significant proportion of the general population is under represented. You've just described 'an old boys' club', you haven't given anything at all to even suggest racial discrimination specifically. Is there an appetite amongst the BAME community to engage with politics at a national level? This is an important point and goes back to the Scandinavian studies mentioned previously between us. The sort of social engineering that I think is being suggested here doesn't always give the results that you may expect. Yes, the 82/18 (2017 figures are the most recent I can find) split won't be reflected in Parliament, I don't think that we should be surprised by this, there's not much point putting forward a candidate with a passion for farming and rural issues in an inner city area with a high BAME population, hopefully you understand the point there. Roughly 8% of the UK population are EU migrants who are non-UK nationals, but whilst they are here this is their home, so what do we do with them, tell them that they've chosen to come here, sit down and shut up, or try to make the country as welcoming as possible for them, in which case, their views, to some extent, should be considered? No Bamber. It's much more insidious than to brush it off as the " Old Boys Club" This method of selection reinforces the established pre existing prejudices, whether they be racial, class, education or family background. Proof? Just look at what happened to the Jewish Community membership of the Labour Party under Corbyn. Those prejudices did not emerge from nowhere, they have been bubbling away forever in the Labour Party. Corbyn's leadership enabled those that held them, he didn't invent it. Taking Corbyn out of the spotlight do you think this has gone away? Do you think that these views are still not held by local party members? Do you think that local candidate selection is not then influenced? I highlight the Jewish case as it is the current most obvious example. There are equivalent claims of Islamaphobia amongst Tory Party members. So again, as Stuart so eloquently put, on paper our representative democracy is open to everyone, the reality on the ground is rather different. Hence why I believe ethnic minorities are under represented. I left in the line from the BBC on stats deliberately where it stated how things had improved from a representation of 1 in 40 a decade ago to 1 in 10 at the last election. Which rather backs up the point I make about my own experience of how bad it was. It's just that we still have a way to go. |
|
