Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why Does Labour Have This Need To Discriminate?
34 Answers
http://
Why is it that anti white descrimination is ok? Why not pick the best candidate regardless of colour?
Why is it that anti white descrimination is ok? Why not pick the best candidate regardless of colour?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// I think we should question if that's really what we have, when such large sections of the population seem to be excluded from joining it. //
It's not fair to say that anyone eligible is excluded from 'joining it'. They’re not. In an effort to be 'fair' to one section of society, you're denying a level playing field to the rest.
It's not fair to say that anyone eligible is excluded from 'joining it'. They’re not. In an effort to be 'fair' to one section of society, you're denying a level playing field to the rest.
But then the section(s) of society you're trying to be fair to don't seem to have a level playing field themselves. So preserving the status quo isn't exactly sensible either.
AOG: Perhaps. The broader point is that Parliament shouldn't be made up of a larger proportion of black people/ women/ trans* people, etc, because only these people can understand issues specific to them (although in matters of politics personal experience is a massive advantage) -- but because if political interest is uncorrelated to ethnic background or gender then it follows that the make-up of Parliament should naturally reflect these diverse backgrounds in roughly equal proportion to the make-up of the total population. It's a simple statistical argument:
1. There should be no correlation between a person's gender/ ethnic background and their interest in a career in politics, or their personal ability to pursue such a career.
2. There should be no discriminatory barriers that would adversely affect a person's political prospects based on their gender/ ethnicity/ etc.
3. Therefore, Parliament should be approximately as diverse as the population.
If it is not -- certainly to the extent of a 4:1 split in favour of men, for example, it's clearly not -- then one or both of the first two points above is evidently false. I expect that it's going to end up being point 2, since this covers rather a lot of "sub-points", from the way a woman/ black person is perceived by the selection panel right down to how their ethnicity or gender affects the way they're perceived or treated in the educational system.
One way or another, though, there are clearly problems in society today that affect the career prospects of certain groups of people. This is true in not just politics, of course. But there is still some way to go until we genuinely are picking "the best person for the job".
AOG: Perhaps. The broader point is that Parliament shouldn't be made up of a larger proportion of black people/ women/ trans* people, etc, because only these people can understand issues specific to them (although in matters of politics personal experience is a massive advantage) -- but because if political interest is uncorrelated to ethnic background or gender then it follows that the make-up of Parliament should naturally reflect these diverse backgrounds in roughly equal proportion to the make-up of the total population. It's a simple statistical argument:
1. There should be no correlation between a person's gender/ ethnic background and their interest in a career in politics, or their personal ability to pursue such a career.
2. There should be no discriminatory barriers that would adversely affect a person's political prospects based on their gender/ ethnicity/ etc.
3. Therefore, Parliament should be approximately as diverse as the population.
If it is not -- certainly to the extent of a 4:1 split in favour of men, for example, it's clearly not -- then one or both of the first two points above is evidently false. I expect that it's going to end up being point 2, since this covers rather a lot of "sub-points", from the way a woman/ black person is perceived by the selection panel right down to how their ethnicity or gender affects the way they're perceived or treated in the educational system.
One way or another, though, there are clearly problems in society today that affect the career prospects of certain groups of people. This is true in not just politics, of course. But there is still some way to go until we genuinely are picking "the best person for the job".
I would be pretty miffed if I was selected for something based solely on the fact that I'm female and under 25, but I would also be miffed if I wasn't selected because I'm not gay and not black. Selection for anything has to be on merit alone, positive discrimination however well meaning is unfair and patronising.
Perhaps; especially as the problem is almost certainly lower down, and I'd be worried that a "top-down" approach to fixing the problem might not work in the long term. Most notably, since the 1997 election that saw 120 women MPs in a house of 659, there's been no real increase in the number of women since (118 in 2001, 127 in 2005 and 2010). So top-down fixes are only superficial fixes, really.
If you want to engage young people, black people, gay people, women etc in politics then you have start that interest in people younger than me- and most people younger than me would take a very keen interest in politics if they were enabled to. People expect less than nothing of young people and frequently we don't disappoint them because lots of people by 16 are so sick of being ridiculed and disregarded that they simply give up and revert to stereotype. Engage people form primary school onwards and you'll get an even spread of the population automatically.
"If you want to engage young people, black people, gay people, women etc in politics then you have start that interest in people younger than me- and most people younger than me would take a very keen interest in politics if they were enabled to. People expect less than nothing of young people and frequently we don't disappoint them because lots of people by 16 are so sick of being ridiculed and disregarded that they simply give up and revert to stereotype. Engage people form primary school onwards and you'll get an even spread of the population automatically. "
Even assuming that dream would yield results, how is it to be achieved in the UK ?
Even assuming that dream would yield results, how is it to be achieved in the UK ?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.