Are you denying that it's a reality of our society?

 

ISTM it's a reality of every society.

giving subsidies to encourage inclusiveness is not discrimination. Charging them more to keep them out is discrimination. If you can't see that basic principle then presumably you have problems with businesses (and organisations) giving pensioners, students, disabled people cut-price tickets, and clubs giving women free entry to try and balance the male-female ratio?

 

Or people who have a membership card getting money off over those who don't. Surely that's discrimination too? How about charging gas guzzling cars more than small engined cars in tax? That's discrimination too.

 

If I gave examples like this, you'd call them strawmen.

 

To use your example, if it were a 95% black organisation in a predominantly black area which wished to see non-blacks better represented when the local non-black population was 10 or 20% which was encouraging it by charging a lower fee, would I be outraged? No, I wouldn't. It's positive action, which is what MP's and local government are required to do by law - to ensure a fair balance. By way of example, Bournemouth Council in the 1980's was virtually 95% or more white, non-white workers were rare. Now they aren't. That isn't racism against whites, it's stopping racism against non-whites.

 

So, to summarise : discrimination is wrong, except where it isn't? :huh:

If I gave examples like this, you'd call them strawmen.

So, to summarise : discrimination is wrong, except where it isn't? :huh:

If you don't engage with other people's arguments, why do you expect us to engage with yours?

If you don't engage with other people's arguments, why do you expect us to engage with yours?

 

I *have* done so in the past, but anything I say is not taken seriously here.

If I gave examples like this, you'd call them strawmen.

So, to summarise : discrimination is wrong, except where it isn't? :huh:

 

You're the one being selective, not me.

 

You're the one seeing what is The Law (not to discriminate against minorities) as being discrimination against the majority. The example I gave is the exact reverse of the situation you find annoying, and I gave an honest answer. No I wouldn't find positive assistance for whites in a non-white area where they suffer discrimination offensive or discriminatory. There are areas of the country where it MIGHT be valid, and it's certainly true in other countries. You might recall those countries where the minority rich whites ruled the majority poor black - it's within your living memory, unless your rose-tinted glasses have erased it from your mind. Now, when the rich white farmers were being systematically murdered and removed in one country (which decimated the economy, as a result of various things including UK policy) I was not and would never be in favour of minority oppression (even rich whites part of a community which had formerly done exactly that).

 

I also gave you a local history lesson and showed exactly how positive action and equality legislation had changed the make-up of local government (for the better). It's just a shame that local Councillors remain elderly white male Tories, with a few elderly white Tory women chucked in. Not remotely ethnically varied.

 

Is that made-up? Cos it isn't....

You're the one being selective, not me.

 

You're the one seeing what is The Law (not to discriminate against minorities) as being discrimination against the majority. The example I gave is the exact reverse of the situation you find annoying, and I gave an honest answer. No I wouldn't find positive assistance for whites in a non-white area where they suffer discrimination offensive or discriminatory. There are areas of the country where it MIGHT be valid, and it's certainly true in other countries.

 

Affirmative action is OK in principle, as long as it is not overused - if that happens, then it can become seen as an alternative to working for what you want, which encourages laziness.

 

You might recall those countries where the minority rich whites ruled the majority poor black - it's within your living memory, unless your rose-tinted glasses have erased it from your mind. Now, when the rich white farmers were being systematically murdered and removed in one country (which decimated the economy, as a result of various things including UK policy) I was not and would never be in favour of minority oppression (even rich whites part of a community which had formerly done exactly that).

I assume you refer to Zimbabwe.

 

I also gave you a local history lesson and showed exactly how positive action and equality legislation had changed the make-up of local government (for the better). It's just a shame that local Councillors remain elderly white male Tories, with a few elderly white Tory women chucked in. Not remotely ethnically varied.

 

Even in Labour areas? ;)

 

Seriously though, part of that is due to the selection process, but it's always risky for parties to impose an outside candidate on an area, even if that candidate is of the same group as the majority of the electorate. When they are not, as in John Taylor's standing for Cheltenham in the 1992 election, you are just asking for trouble.

 

http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/rise-and-...ord-john-taylor

 

In reality it wasn't that simple, as the popular and long-standing Tory MP (Charles Irving) (*) had stepped down, taking with him a substantial personal vote - and it's not as if the LD's came from nowhere - they were already in control of Cheltenham Borough Council, and were only 8% behind at the previous GE.

 

(*) It was an open secret in the town that has was gay, though he never officially came out.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...ud-2291602.html

 

So was our decision that misjudged, after all? :thinking:

Bournemouth is not known for its Labour areas.

Bournemouth is not known for its Labour areas.

 

More so than Cheltenham, though!

 

Labour got less than 10% in Cheltenham last time, whereas in both Bournemouth seats they scored around 35%...

Affirmative action is OK in principle, as long as it is not overused - if that happens, then it can become seen as an alternative to working for what you want, which encourages laziness.

 

I assume you refer to Zimbabwe.

Even in Labour areas? ;)

 

Seriously though, part of that is due to the selection process, but it's always risky for parties to impose an outside candidate on an area, even if that candidate is of the same group as the majority of the electorate. When they are not, as in John Taylor's standing for Cheltenham in the 1992 election, you are just asking for trouble.

 

http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/rise-and-...ord-john-taylor

 

In reality it wasn't that simple, as the popular and long-standing Tory MP (Charles Irving) (*) had stepped down, taking with him a substantial personal vote - and it's not as if the LD's came from nowhere - they were already in control of Cheltenham Borough Council, and were only 8% behind at the previous GE.

 

(*) It was an open secret in the town that has was gay, though he never officially came out.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...ud-2291602.html

 

So was our decision that misjudged, after all? :thinking:

 

1. the assumption that jobs etc go to less qualified people is very wrong, in Local government certainly. Every job applicant is scored by a panel to ensure fairness and it also gives people an opportunity to challenge results if they want (which is why it needs to be scored). Often, candidates are wafer-thin in differences on paper and those are the occasions where personal prejudices may have had an opportunity to affect the result in the past. If you cant do the job ("be lazy") you won't get it. That is a lazy stereotype.

 

2. Yes, Zimbabwe

 

3. Local candidates are chosen largely from the Business community, for Tories, because that is who wants to stand for office and gets involved in local politics to advantage themselves and their interests. That means the large non-white community has no representation, especially those employed to do the cleaning (oddly enough, all non-white-UK on the contracts won to do the Council, what a shock white British people don't like cleaning! Before you comment, it goes to the lowest bidder, which is to save the taxpayer money). A fair proportion of Tory Councillors are also gay businessmen, low-key - which is fair enough because it's not remotely relevant - but I fondly recall one or two back in the day when they were out and shagging about on the scene. Nothing against most Tory councillors personally, and some are quite good. Some are utterly useless and deceitful though and they cause damage.

 

 

 

1. the assumption that jobs etc go to less qualified people is very wrong, in Local government certainly. Every job applicant is scored by a panel to ensure fairness and it also gives people an opportunity to challenge results if they want (which is why it needs to be scored). Often, candidates are wafer-thin in differences on paper and those are the occasions where personal prejudices may have had an opportunity to affect the result in the past. If you cant do the job ("be lazy") you won't get it. That is a lazy stereotype.

 

2. Yes, Zimbabwe

 

3. Local candidates are chosen largely from the Business community, for Tories, because that is who wants to stand for office and gets involved in local politics to advantage themselves and their interests. That means the large non-white community has no representation, especially those employed to do the cleaning (oddly enough, all non-white-UK on the contracts won to do the Council, what a shock white British people don't like cleaning! Before you comment, it goes to the lowest bidder, which is to save the taxpayer money). A fair proportion of Tory Councillors are also gay businessmen, low-key - which is fair enough because it's not remotely relevant - but I fondly recall one or two back in the day when they were out and shagging about on the scene. Nothing against most Tory councillors personally, and some are quite good. Some are utterly useless and deceitful though and they cause damage.

 

1. Perhaps - but people who come across well in interviews are not necessarily those who will do the best job. After all, how many successful computer companies were founded by social awkward 'nerds' who would have struggled through any job interview...

 

3. Surely communities with a large non-white presence are likely to vote Labour rather then Conservative anyway?

More so than Cheltenham, though!

 

Labour got less than 10% in Cheltenham last time, whereas in both Bournemouth seats they scored around 35%...

That 35% vote was something of an exception though. They might maintain that vote or they might fall back again.

That 35% vote was something of an exception though. They might maintain that vote or they might fall back again.

 

I was quite surprised to see such a high Labour vote there - I would have expected the LD's to be second.

1. Perhaps - but people who come across well in interviews are not necessarily those who will do the best job. After all, how many successful computer companies were founded by social awkward 'nerds' who would have struggled through any job interview...

 

3. Surely communities with a large non-white presence are likely to vote Labour rather then Conservative anyway?

 

1. True and we live in an imperfect world

2. Most of the cleaners and co don't have the vote and Bournemouth is still overwhelmingly white and /or well off and/or retired.

2. Most of the cleaners and co don't have the vote and Bournemouth is still overwhelmingly white and /or well off and/or retired.

 

Why don't they have the vote?

Why don't they have the vote?

 

Immigrant labour. Cheaper. 3 million in the UK from the EU, and presumably the same for non-EU?

Immigrant labour. Cheaper. 3 million in the UK from the EU, and presumably the same for non-EU?

 

If *they* can't vote, than where is that 35% Labour vote share coming from?

If *they* can't vote, than where is that 35% Labour vote share coming from?

Labour did very well in a lot of seats along the south coast, including in areas where their vote has been very low for decades. As well as both Bournemouth seats they did relatively well in neighbouring Poole and in one of the Worthing seats. In Brighton and Hove they won two of the seats with large majorities, having gone into the election holding one of them with a small majority.

Labour did very well in a lot of seats along the south coast, including in areas where their vote has been very low for decades. As well as both Bournemouth seats they did relatively well in neighbouring Poole and in one of the Worthing seats. In Brighton and Hove they won two of the seats with large majorities, having gone into the election holding one of them with a small majority.

 

I thought one of the Brighton seats was the only one held by the Greens?

 

I thought one of the Brighton seats was the only one held by the Greens?

It is. That's why I referred to Brighton & Hove.

It is. That's why I referred to Brighton & Hove.

 

When did Hove get a seat of its own?