International News Donald Trump 🍊🇺🇸

SteMerritt said:
Good selective use of data ? I can't be bothered to look up what percentage of seats that is, probably because it's a bit of a daft argument in the first place...
Click to expand...
There are currently 364 Tory MPs, 202 Labour MPs, so 6.59% of Tory MPs are BAME, 6.93% of Labour MPs are BAME. Shows pretty conclusively that the Tories are far more racist than Labour. Now, let's try to find out the relative numbers of MPs who are Jewish ....
 
Yes but imagine the the tories had all BAME shortlists and Labour didn’t. Certain people’s heads would explode trying to justify it...
 
HampshireYellow said:
Yes but imagine the the tories had all BAME shortlists and Labour didn’t. Certain people’s heads would explode trying to justify it...
Click to expand...

No problem for me.... if the candidates are good enough and selected democratically by the local party.
If you get a list made up entirely of BAME candidates then that is how democracy works.
Intentionally selecting a shortlist based on heritage is, ironically, racist just on the other end of the see saw. ;)
 
Pete Burrett said:
There are currently 364 Tory MPs, 202 Labour MPs, so 6.59% of Tory MPs are BAME, 6.93% of Labour MPs are BAME. Shows pretty conclusively that the Tories are far more racist than Labour. Now, let's try to find out the relative numbers of MPs who are Jewish ....
Click to expand...

BAME people make up 12.9% of the population, so if you were to split that 12.9% between 2 political parties it would be 6.45% so both exceed the quota and can not be deemed "racist". ;)(y)
 
SteMerritt said:
Good selective use of data ? I can't be bothered to look up what percentage of seats that is, probably because it's a bit of a daft argument in the first place...
Click to expand...

Lies, damned lies & statistics......................... could be here a while, its the day job. :ROFLMAO:
 
Essexyellows said:
BAME people make up 12.9% of the population, so if you were to split that 12.9% between 2 political parties it would be 6.45% so both exceed the quota and can not be deemed "racist". ;)(y)
Click to expand...
.... but the Tories are still MORE racist than Labour, even though both parties appear to be trying to be 'right on do-gooders' by exceeding the 6.45%.

The more interesting statistic would be how many Labour candidates in seats won by the Tories were BAME. If we knew that we could deduce all sorts of things ....
 
Pete Burrett said:
.... but the Tories are still MORE racist than Labour, even though both parties appear to be trying to be 'right on do-gooders' by exceeding the 6.45%.

The more interesting statistic would be how many Labour candidates in seats won by the Tories were BAME. If we knew that we could deduce all sorts of things ....
Click to expand...

Or more of the BAME community are traditionally core Labour voters and therefore prejudice against the Tories. Bloody racists. :)
 
Essexyellows said:
BAME people make up 12.9% of the population, so if you were to split that 12.9% between 2 political parties it would be 6.45% so both exceed the quota and can not be deemed "racist". ;)(y)
Click to expand...
This was a joke, right? Both are at half the “quota” and equally unrepresentative.
 
chuckbert said:
This was a joke, right? Both are at half the “quota” and equally unrepresentative.
Click to expand...

<insert woosh here> ............ just suggesting what can be done with statistics. ;)
I understand that many organisations, employers etc do not reflect the population whereas others (like the NHS) are the polar opposite.
However "positive discrimination" should not be used to redress that balance, it will occur naturally over time and be achieved on merit.
 
Essexyellows said:
<insert woosh here> ............ just suggesting what can be done with statistics. ;)
I understand that many organisations, employers etc do not reflect the population whereas others (like the NHS) are the polar opposite.
However "positive discrimination" should not be used to redress that balance, it will occur naturally over time and be achieved on merit.
Click to expand...

Assuming society isn't racist or guilty of unconscious bias.
 
Essexyellows said:
However "positive discrimination" should not be used to redress that balance, it will occur naturally over time and be achieved on merit.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is simply that it isn't true.
Let's even take colour and ethnicity out of this. Even in most democratic Western countries, women are still under-represented in positions of power (Parliament has 220 female MPs out of 650. Shamefully only 24% of Tory MPs are women) for example. How many top companies are headed up by women? There are still employers trying to pay women less than men for an equivalent job (despite both social attitudes and the law). And surely there is nobody still prehistoric enough to believe that, given an even playing field, women are less capable than men?
And I would suggest that there is *less* discrimination against women than there is against people more obviously 'other'.
I'm not a great fan of 'positive discrimination', as I think it is a pretty crude way of redressing the balance in any sort of '-ism' (and is even likely to create resentment and provoke 'yeah, but you only got that job because...' attitudes ) but since I *don't* think things will magically right themselves, it might be the best of a bad set of alternatives.
 
Essexyellows said:
<insert woosh here> ............ just suggesting what can be done with statistics. ;)
I understand that many organisations, employers etc do not reflect the population whereas others (like the NHS) are the polar opposite.
However "positive discrimination" should not be used to redress that balance, it will occur naturally over time and be achieved on merit.
Click to expand...
Racism, sexism, ageism - they will all just balance themselves out over time will they? That's going well so far then. What an incredibly naive and one-eyed view. You work in one of the most racially diverse environments in the country, do you ever talk to fellow employees about their experience of racism or even just listen?

The Brexit 'experience', where large numbers of essential foreign workers have been made to feel unwelcome and Trump's presidency, where a chunk of his votes seem to be reaction to a two-term black President and he has courted the far-right - that will really help achievement on 'merit'.

Christ, you have a depressing world view (inserts smiley face, winking face, shocked face, etc).
 
Essexyellows said:
<insert woosh here> ............ just suggesting what can be done with statistics. ;)
I understand that many organisations, employers etc do not reflect the population whereas others (like the NHS) are the polar opposite.
However "positive discrimination" should not be used to redress that balance, it will occur naturally over time and be achieved on merit.
Click to expand...
Good :) - I just saw that some following posts seemed to take it a face value ...
 
Big Ron said:
Racism, sexism, ageism - they will all just balance themselves out over time will they? That's going well so far then. What an incredibly naive and one-eyed view. You work in one of the most racially diverse environments in the country, do you ever talk to fellow employees about their experience of racism or even just listen?

The Brexit 'experience', where large numbers of essential foreign workers have been made to feel unwelcome and Trump's presidency, where a chunk of his votes seem to be reaction to a two-term black President and he has courted the far-right - that will really help achievement on 'merit'.

Christ, you have a depressing world view (inserts smiley face, winking face, shocked face, etc).
Click to expand...

I talk to fellow employees every day about a wide range of topics.
Very broadly speaking the older generation (same age as me 50+), experienced racial hostility in their earlier years.
I`m old enough to remember the hostility shown to black players at the Manor and across the UK.
The younger colleagues (under 30`s) understand how much that has improved.................. ironically over time.
However, if you dig a little deeper, you find that divisions still exist in those same communities that experienced racism.
That can be across religion, caste, perceived "wealth" and even family names.
Brexit was a decision open to all entitled to vote, roughly 1/3rd of BAME voters voted to Leave, it wasn`t a "racist" vote it was a choice to detach from the EU.
Generically speaking there hasn`t been a flood of vacancies created by EU citizens leaving now the dust is settling and they learn they can just carry on.
That might be far different experience for youngsters in other countries that were considering coming here.

You might be surprised I have a far broader view than you seem to think.
 
Big Ron said:
Racism, sexism, ageism - they will all just balance themselves out over time will they? That's going well so far then.
Click to expand...
I think that EY is correct in this, just that it will take a lot longer than many people think or want - possibly one or two more generations, rather than one or two more years.

It will be a gradual thing, slowly seeping upwards through the tiers of any industry we care to talk about. I do not have any actual figures to back this, but my sense is that the proportion of females (and BAME) within team leader/lower management positions has been rising steadily over time and in time the same will happen with middle, then senior, then board level positions, but that it will not be same individuals necessarily driving this growth. Instead it will be subsequent waves who perhaps have higher expectations as to where they can achieve than their predecessors, who will have perhaps followed a different path in terms of education/training/experience etc.
Companies are perhaps more open to appointing women to more senior posts than they were 5,10,20, 30 years ago, but it may be that the pool of women to select from is perhaps narrower than it could be, because of the historical limitations to progress that have been seen in the past.

To put this another way, if we think about teh argument around BAME representation within the management side of football.
The reasons that there are no BAME managers at the top level right now, is not because clubs today are being racist, it is because the pool of BAME managers who have the right degree of experience and success to warrant those positions is currently very small. The reason that it is very small is not to do with anything that is happening today, it is due to attitudes and opportunities within the game in the past, which limited the number of BAME people looking or achieveing moves into that side of the game at that time.

If we think back say 10-20 years, how many BAME managers were there in off-field positions within the game - Paul Ince, Chris Hughton, Keith Curle and Keith Alexander and that was about it wasnt it? Individually they made some progress, but were naturally limited by their abilities - CH has achieved some longevity and success in getting into the EPL, Ince started well, but fell off rapidly (and perhaps got more opportunities that he actually deserved), Curle has done OK at EFL level, but the others tended to stay at smaller clubs at the lower levels. So the only domestic BAME manager who would even be considered for an EPL role now would be Hughton, but has he had the success to justify a role at a top top club?

Nowadays I would reckon most clubs have one or more BAME staff within their main management/coaching setups, which they didnt back then, and there are more of them who have the drive and see the opportunity to move up the ladder into the #1 role either at their club or beyond. More are being offered chances as caretakers, more are turning those into permanent appointments, more are making a success of the role than before, so in time there will be more representation at these levels and out of this wider pool of people working their way up, there are more likely to be some who are able to reach further than those few that went before them.

As I've said before, the only barrier they face getting onto that ladder/into the 92 list, is the same as any rookie of any race faces, is convincing a board to take a gamble on an untried talent over a more experienced name or foreign manager, but that is nothing to do with race. Most ex-pros face this barrier, and it is only a handful of 'elite' players who can maybe get a leg-up based on their name rather than their abilities - Gerrard, Lampard and Sol Campbell are the most recent examples - while others get just one shot or no chance at all (eg Sherringham, Fowler to name but two).

So, it will happen naturally, and as a result of changes in society, but it will be evolution not revolution, which many will not consider to be quick enough
 
mooro said:
I think that EY is correct in this, just that it will take a lot longer than many people think or want - possibly one or two more generations, rather than one or two more years.

It will be a gradual thing, slowly seeping upwards through the tiers of any industry we care to talk about. I do not have any actual figures to back this, but my sense is that the proportion of females (and BAME) within team leader/lower management positions has been rising steadily over time and in time the same will happen with middle, then senior, then board level positions, but that it will not be same individuals necessarily driving this growth. Instead it will be subsequent waves who perhaps have higher expectations as to where they can achieve than their predecessors, who will have perhaps followed a different path in terms of education/training/experience etc.
Companies are perhaps more open to appointing women to more senior posts than they were 5,10,20, 30 years ago, but it may be that the pool of women to select from is perhaps narrower than it could be, because of the historical limitations to progress that have been seen in the past.

To put this another way, if we think about teh argument around BAME representation within the management side of football.
The reasons that there are no BAME managers at the top level right now, is not because clubs today are being racist, it is because the pool of BAME managers who have the right degree of experience and success to warrant those positions is currently very small. The reason that it is very small is not to do with anything that is happening today, it is due to attitudes and opportunities within the game in the past, which limited the number of BAME people looking or achieveing moves into that side of the game at that time.

If we think back say 10-20 years, how many BAME managers were there in off-field positions within the game - Paul Ince, Chris Hughton, Keith Curle and Keith Alexander and that was about it wasnt it? Individually they made some progress, but were naturally limited by their abilities - CH has achieved some longevity and success in getting into the EPL, Ince started well, but fell off rapidly (and perhaps got more opportunities that he actually deserved), Curle has done OK at EFL level, but the others tended to stay at smaller clubs at the lower levels. So the only domestic BAME manager who would even be considered for an EPL role now would be Hughton, but has he had the success to justify a role at a top top club?

Nowadays I would reckon most clubs have one or more BAME staff within their main management/coaching setups, which they didnt back then, and there are more of them who have the drive and see the opportunity to move up the ladder into the #1 role either at their club or beyond. More are being offered chances as caretakers, more are turning those into permanent appointments, more are making a success of the role than before, so in time there will be more representation at these levels and out of this wider pool of people working their way up, there are more likely to be some who are able to reach further than those few that went before them.

As I've said before, the only barrier they face getting onto that ladder/into the 92 list, is the same as any rookie of any race faces, is convincing a board to take a gamble on an untried talent over a more experienced name or foreign manager, but that is nothing to do with race. Most ex-pros face this barrier, and it is only a handful of 'elite' players who can maybe get a leg-up based on their name rather than their abilities - Gerrard, Lampard and Sol Campbell are the most recent examples - while others get just one shot or no chance at all (eg Sherringham, Fowler to name but two).

So, it will happen naturally, and as a result of changes in society, but it will be evolution not revolution, which many will not consider to be quick enough
Click to expand...

Hurrah, somebody "gets it", and eloquently described!
Embedded, cultural change happens over many decades not overnight!
The glass ceiling gets removed and replaced, not smashed so the debris kills those on the ground floor.
As long as the equality and parity is in place anyone, irrespective of characteristics can achieve and that is the world I would like to see.

Now the reality is that some folk will be born lucky and others less so, but that is just "life" , as long as the opportunity to break the cycle is available to all then life becomes fairer over time.

And I`ll be carbon floating around in the atmosphere saying I told you so.
 
Anyway...back to the topic...
.
043f7a9d5eba8de88fe419bce902f2ac.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gary Baldi
The Donald Is Coming To Town
2 3
Replies
49
Views
11K
Gary Baldi
Gary Baldi
M
International News Trump NFTs
Replies
9
Views
1K
Wallop
W
Sarge
International News Trump impeached
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
7K
Gary Baldi
Gary Baldi
Back
Top Bottom