NationStates Jolt Archive

White candidates should be barred from standing for Parliament in up to eight constituencies in order to get more black and Asian MPs elected, says a controversial report commissioned by Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman. Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK, but the report concludes that, without a change in the law allowing parties to impose all-black shortlists, it would take more than 75 years for Britain's ethnic make-up to be fairly reflected at Westminster. Harman is understood to be still considering the report's findings in detail, but has expressed personal support for a change.

Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote and the author of the review, said talented candidates were not 'getting past go' at the moment. 'The change in the law is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut; it's not forcing parties to use all-black shortlists,' he said. 'But unless we take positive action measures we are not going to have a representative democracy for more than 75 years. It's not that we don't have Obamas, but we don't have the mechanisms for them to see the light of day.'

His report is understood to conclude that all-black shortlists would be needed for two decades, after which talented candidates could be expected to make it on their own. It identifies 100 constituencies with large ethnic minority communities as prime targets for shortlists, but concludes that positive discrimination would be needed in only four to eight of those seats for four elections in a row to ensure that the proportion of ethnic minority MPs matches the proportion in the population.

Woolley's findings are likely to be controversial, with any proposal to change the law risking a rough ride in the Commons. Last week, former minister Keith Vaz introduced a backbench bill proposing all-black shortlists, which was instantly condemned by Tory backbencher Philip Davies as 'politically correct' and divisive. However, Vaz is lobbying Harman for the measure to be included in a bill on equality issues later this year - meaning it could be on the statute book by 2009. 'She is the person who has a huge history of supporting these issues,' he added.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely disgusting, Isn't this is a violation of the Human Rights Act? It's illegal and even goes against UN/EU regulations. Aren't we supposed to be living in a democracy?

We all know theres no such thing as positive discrimination, its only positive for those who it gives an advantage due (whether that advantage be cause there gay, black, female etc..) and negative to whoever it doesn't give the advantage to (everyone else).

:headbang:

Link:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/10/harrietharman.labour

Why does this not surprise me? I wonder if ALL of Europe will take this up soon? Then maybe the U.S can start it, heck why don't we just segregate whites completely, after all, they ARE Sub-Human.

Aside from being racist, stupid, and insane, I honestly don't see how this is going to work at all. It's an absolute nightmare to implement, and all it will change is which group of people ends up pissed off.

I could kinda-sorta-maybe see it working in a PR election system, but in a FPTP like the UK, it couldnt' possibly work unless you want to tell certain districts they have to elect an ethnic minority. And I'm sure that goes against British common law at some point.

Hmm. Tricky one. Actually prohibiting caucasian candidates does seem like a step too far, even where I can see the value in artificially promoting particular features in MPs depending on the constituency.

'course, we all know the problem is that the UK lacks a decent PR system of vote declaration anyway. You'd find a wider range of ethnicities of parlimentary representatives if we didn't use such an "all or nothing" method of picking them.

Assuming that this report is accurate (people who know the UK papers better than me, is the Guardian a reliable source?), this is just as bad as if they wanted to ban any other race from running.

<Edit: there's also the question, is Harmen regarded as a nut for this and/or other positions she holds?>

Assuming that this report is accurate (people who know the UK papers better than me, is the Guardian a reliable source?), this is just as bad as if they wanted to ban any other race from running.

Well we lucky they printed it at all, they rarely print anything to do with discrimination to anyone but "minorities".

I've heard no protests or anything against Harmen, no public outcries like you'd expect over discrimination. Obviously this isn't a biase or something.. :rolleyes

Well we lucky they printed it at all, they rarely print anything to do with discrimination to anyone but "minorities".

I feel sorry for you if you are white, if not, you should be thrilled! Those white ebil Imperialist scum are getting what was coming to them!

Politically correct... but is it democratically correct?

I feel sorry for you if you are white, if not, you should be thrilled! Those white ebil Imperialist scum are getting what was coming to them!

Well its high time we learnt our lesson for being "ebil imperialistic scum".

Why does this not surprise me? I wonder if ALL of Europe will take this up soon? Then maybe the U.S can start it, heck why don't we just segregate whites completely, after all, they ARE Sub-Human.

You should be glad, this is a step towards "equality" :rolleyes::mad:

You should be glad, this is a step towards "equality" :rolleyes::mad:

Absolutely! At least SOMEONE around here gets it! (sarcasm intended)

Logically, this fails to do anything but ignite a race war. If the districts are populated predominantly by minorities, then either these groups do not actually care enough about representation by their kinsfolk or else they'd vote accordingly. If they're still a majority ethnic English--and unlike America, Old World nationstates actually ARE ethically-defined nations with political sovreignty--then you achieve LESS of a true representation by disenfranchising the root of the nation.

The other option, of course, is gerrymandering.

Why does this not surprise me? I wonder if ALL of Europe will take this up soon? Then maybe the U.S can start it, heck why don't we just segregate whites completely, after all, they ARE Sub-Human.

Ah, yes, the impending oppression of poor marginalised whitey in the US and Europe. :rolleyes:

Having said that, this remains absurd.

Absolutely! At least SOMEONE around here gets it! (sarcasm intended)

Worry not for the racism of ol' whitey shall be eliminated!

Ah, yes, the impending oppression of poor marginalised whitey in the US and Europe. :rolleyes:

Having said that, this remains absurd.

Well the white race does suffer from "positive discrimination" and the like.

I hate positive discrimination, they should be looking for the best not the most politically correct. Same goes for those schools where they tell heaps of really smart people to piss off because they're not a girl.

Ah, yes, the impending oppression of poor marginalised whitey in the US and Europe. :rolleyes:

Having said that, this remains absurd.

I didn't mean to deny that "whites" Aka France, England, Portugal and Spain have been terrible to other races in the past, but MODERN day whites don't deserve this treatment.

Absolutely disgusting, Isn't this is a violation of the Human Rights Act? It's illegal and even goes against UN/EU regulations. Aren't we supposed to be living in a democracy?

I can't argue about the particular merits and demerits of this, but it is not uncommon to have reserved constituencies for minority candidates. There are constituencies reserved for women, scheduled castes and tribes etc in many levels of elected representation (village panchayats, state assemblies etc) in India.

Well the white race does suffer from "positive discrimination" and the like.

And other races suffer from "negative" discrimination. What is your point?

I didn't mean to deny that "whites" Aka France, England, Portugal and Spain have been terrible to other races in the past, but MODERN day whites don't deserve this treatment.

Most certainly, but to suggest that this is one step on the road to ethnic cleansing of whites is ridiculous.

And other races suffer from "negative" discrimination. What is your point?

The white race suffers from negative discrimination also, but it is the only race to suffer from so called "Positive discrimination".
My point is that it is racist against the white peoples.

And other races suffer from "negative" discrimination. What is your point?



Most certainly, but to suggest that this is one step on the road to ethnic cleansing of whites is ridiculous.

Well, nothing happens in a day, but lets say this passes and they say it will stop in, say, 10 years. 10 Years later, they decide to NOT stop, just 5 years more, Ect. Well, one thing slowly leads to another. For admittedly the best reasons and intentions, then BAM, severe segregation and racism. It most likely won't happen, and if it does, not like I say, but keep in mind, the slippery slope...

I've got a much better idea: proportional representation. It's not racist and it'll work better.

But you guys do realize that they wouldn't ever actually impliment this, right? It's a suggestion that was published because it makes for a good news story.

Already saw it...but didn't want to post it and instead wait for someone else to because I knew if I posted it than everyone would ignore the topic and address how evil I am.
:rolleyes:

Yes, many people around here ARE that pathetic.

Banning white candidates from the ballots?

After all, the world has such a substantial surplus of good voting choices. :rolleyes:

Or they could address the root causes of why ethnic minorities can't compete in politics. But that would be just nutty. :p

Already saw it...but didn't want to post it and instead wait for someone else to because I knew if I posted it than everyone would ignore the topic and address how evil I am.
:rolleyes:

Yes, many people around here ARE that pathetic.

Yeah, post just ONE race related topic, and no matter what, the person who does so is a "racist". I know the feeling.

Already saw it...but didn't want to post it and instead wait for someone else to because I knew if I posted it than everyone would ignore the topic and address how evil I am.
:rolleyes:

Yes, many people around here ARE that pathetic.

Well, I'm not sure if you've succeeded with that. Hachihyaku "All my friends on Stormfront are so much more open-minded than NSG" is not the best candidate to make this kind of article appear unbiased.

I've got a much better idea: proportional representation. It's not racist and it'll work better.

But you guys do realize that they wouldn't ever actually impliment this, right? It's a suggestion that was published because it makes for a good news story.

This is true.

Or they could address the root causes of why ethnic minorities can't compete in politics. But that would be just nutty. :p

... wouldn't that cost money? :confused:

Well, nothing happens in a day, but lets say this passes and they say it will stop in, say, 10 years. 10 Years later, they decide to NOT stop, just 5 years more, Ect. Well, one thing slowly leads to another. For admittedly the best reasons and intentions, then BAM, severe segregation and racism. It most likely won't happen, and if it does, not like I say, but keep in mind, the slippery slope...

The takeover of a historically white-dominated nation by less than 10% of its population, which has historically been marginalised in said nation for hundreds of years, seems just a tad unlikely to me. Especially since as Kyronea says this has little to no hope of being implemented.

*snip*

His report is understood to conclude that all-black shortlists would be needed for two decades, after which talented candidates could be expected to make it on their own. It identifies 100 constituencies with large ethnic minority communities as prime targets for shortlists, but concludes that positive discrimination would be needed in only four to eight of those seats for four elections in a row to ensure that the proportion of ethnic minority MPs matches the proportion in the population.

Woolley's findings are likely to be controversial, with any proposal to change the law risking a rough ride in the Commons. *snip*

Can you explain what "His report is understood to conclude" means? Has the author of the article actually read the report in question or not? Does it say that or not?

And what exactly is the legal status of this report? Is it merely a suggestion by Mr. Woolley?

BTW, you link didn't work. This one (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/10/harrietharman.labour) should.

I can't argue about the particular merits and demerits of this, but it is not uncommon to have reserved constituencies for minority candidates. There are constituencies reserved for women, scheduled castes and tribes etc in many levels of elected representation (village panchayats, state assemblies etc) in India.

In India, sex and caste are an established institution of the society. In the West, we're supposed to be more egalitarian.

Well, I'm not sure if you've succeeded with that. Hachihyaku "All my friends on Stormfront are so much more open-minded than NSG" is not the best candidate to make this kind of article appear unbiased.
Well I was sorta going for the "anybody but me" poster...

But lol...is he really a stormfronter?

Just as patently absurd as barring blacks, or indeed people of any other colour, from running would be.

And in case you were wondering, yes, I find racism, regardless of whether it's coming from whites, blacks, or any others, to be abhorrent.

The takeover of a historically white-dominated nation by less than 10% of its population, which has historically been marginalised in said nation for hundreds of years, seems just a tad unlikely to me. Especially since as Kyronea says this has little to no hope of being implemented.

If birthing trends continue the way they are going, in about 50 to 80 years whites will be a minority in the UK.


EDIT: And anyway, the European Colonialists managed to rule as a minority in both Asia and Africa. It's not impossible the reverse could happen.

WOW...thats all I can say...WOW. I can already see those stupid "ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ME NOT GETTING THAT JOB AS CEO OF MICROSOFT!(that and the fact that I never went to school, nor have I ever applied to such a job)" people in the US and Canada begging for it's implication there as well.

More more on this see "Pen and Teller's Bullshit: Reparations" episode. Racism for one is racism for all. You don't end racism against black people by forming the Black Panthers and you don't get people eager to vote for black leaders by banning everyone else from running.

First the private sector, it was inevitable that the government should follow. This really sickens me, what if I don't like the stances of someone who is a racial minority and I don't vote for him? Am I being racist? The nuts who came up with this idea would probably say yes.

WOW...thats all I can say...WOW. I can already see those stupid "ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ME NOT GETTING THAT JOB AS CEO OF MICROSOFT!(that and the fact that I never went to school, nor have I ever applied to such a job)" people in the US and Canada begging for it's implication there as well.

More more on this see "Pen and Teller's Bullshit: Reparations" episode. Racism for one is racism for all. You don't end racism against black people by forming the Black Panthers and you don't get people eager to vote for black leaders by banning everyone else from running.

Well, you get Black people to vote for this Black leader.

Thank God... a sensible person. I thought your kind had gone extinct.

No, but they are critically endangered according to the IUCN. :(

Just as patently absurd as barring blacks, or indeed people of any other colour, from running would be.

And in case you were wondering, yes, I find racism, regardless of whether it's coming from whites, blacks, or any others, to be abhorrent.

Thank God... a sensible person. I thought your kind had gone extinct.

Well, you get Black people to vote for this Black leader.

Why? Just because someone has darker skin doesn't mean they would agree with the policies of someone of the same pigment. If you agree with someone's policies and beliefs you vote for them. Physical attributes should be irrelevant.

Why? Just because someone has darker skin doesn't mean they would agree with the policies of someone of the same pigment. If you agree with someone's policies and beliefs you vote for them. Physical attributes should be irrelevant.

A MASSIVE majority of blacks are voting for Obama, that tells me one of two things. Either they care more about race than issues, or quite a few of them are liberals and socialists.

No, but they are critically endangered according to the IUCN. :(
Sad, but true. Glad we aren't quite extinct yet at least.

I really don't get what's so great about diversity in most cases.

I've absolutely nothing against non-whites in the least. But what I don't understand is this obsession with "Diversity" amongst Anglospheric governments. Here in America, we are frequently informed that we are the "Melting Pot", and also that immigrants should assimilate into American culture.

Why is it then that we insist that having "diverse" school classes and workforces is neccessarily positive? Do they bring some sort of exotic "culture" in? As far as my ebil rasist wite mind is concerned, affirmative action and School Diversity programs do little more than make class pictures more interesting.

Obama's not a socialist. Hell, he barely even qualifies as liberal.

At least he's not a Communist, like Hillary.

























Yes, that was sarcasm. ;)

A MASSIVE majority of blacks are voting for Obama, that tells me one of two things. Either they care more about race than issues, or quite a few of them are liberals and socialists.

Obama's not a socialist. Hell, he barely even qualifies as liberal.

A MASSIVE majority of blacks are voting for Obama, that tells me one of two things. Either they care more about race than issues, or quite a few of them are liberals and socialists.

Or they could - gasp! - actually agree with his policies.

Or they could - gasp! - actually agree with his policies.

Yes, they could be liberal's and socialists! *Gasp* Read my posts before responding and you won't make yourself look like a fool!

A MASSIVE majority of blacks are voting for Obama, that tells me one of two things. Either they care more about race than issues, or quite a few of them are liberals and socialists.
I think you are forgetting the fact that a lot of people hate the Clintons and would vote for anyone over them.

Plus he is the first black to have even a remote chance of becoming president, as far as I can recall.

I think you are forgetting the fact that a lot of people hate the Clintons and would vote for anyone over them.

Plus he is the first black to have even a remote chance of becoming president, as far as I can recall.

Yes, as nice as that is for them, if they vote for him based purely on race, they are foolish. Monsters and charlatan's could be any color.



Note: I am not saying obama is a monster.

Already saw it...but didn't want to post it and instead wait for someone else to because I knew if I posted it than everyone would ignore the topic and address how evil I am.
:rolleyes:

Yes, many people around here ARE that pathetic.
ohhhh....do you hear that TAI...do you hear that?
It's the world's smallest violin and it's playing just for you.

Yes, they could be liberal's and socialists! *Gasp* Read my posts before responding and you won't make yourself look like a fool!

One need not be a liberal or a socialist to support Obama or his policies.

or maybe...just maybe...that they can identify with him better than a rich white guy and they're hoping like crazy that Obama won't screw them over like every other rich white guy elected before him.
That ever occur to you?
naw, thought not.

btw, it's not just Blacks who are voting for Obama.

No, but the DIFFERNCE is that they might as well ALL be voting for him. Where as latinos whites and I assume asians are mixed in who they vote for.

One need not be a liberal or a socialist to support Obama or his policies.

Is race a policy?

Stupid. Achieving artificial proportionality will do absolutely nothing to solve racial inequity.

A MASSIVE majority of blacks are voting for Obama, that tells me one of two things. Either they care more about race than issues, or quite a few of them are liberals and socialists.
or maybe...just maybe...that they can identify with him better than a rich white guy and they're hoping like crazy that Obama won't screw them over like every other rich white guy elected before him.
That ever occur to you?
naw, thought not.

btw, it's not just Blacks who are voting for Obama.

Is race a policy?

I won't deny that there are idiots out there who vote for Obama just because he's black, or that there are idiots who will refuse to vote for him just because he's black. However, I am willing to bet that the vast majority of Obama supporters, whatever their color, support him for reasons other than his skin color.

It so happens that I agree with you, in that context.

The way I see it, he may have support from three groups, in addition to those that agree with his policies. In no particular order they are:

1: The Clinton haters (and let's face it, there are a lot of those)
2: Blacks (self explanatory)
3: People who vote for "the little guy"

Personally I don't know who I'd vote for in this election, but it's a moot point, as I'm not a US citizen.

You showed 3 groups, not 4. I agree with 1 and 2, but he ain't no small man.

Either they care more about race than issues,

What, you think there are issues at stake between Clinton and Obama?

or quite a few of them are liberals and socialists.

Well, Blacks do tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats... among other reasons, because the Republican Party is the party of white racism.

I won't deny that there are idiots out there who vote for Obama just because he's black, or that there are idiots who will refuse to vote for him just because he's black. However, I am willing to bet that the vast majority of Obama supporters, whatever their color, support him for reasons other than his skin color.

I would say so for the whites, and maybe a bit less half of the blacks, couldn't say for the rest.

What, you think there are issues at stake between Clinton and Obama?



Well, Blacks do tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats... among other reasons, because the Republican Party is the party of white racism.

They conveniently forget that republican administrations have them in high positions! We also freed them, and generally try to get them self reliant instead of welfare slaves.

Yes, as nice as that is for them, if they vote for him based purely on race, they are foolish. Monsters could be any color.



Note: I am not saying obamas a monster.
It so happens that I agree with you, in that context.

The way I see it, he may have support from three groups, in addition to those that agree with his policies. In no particular order they are:

1: The Clinton haters (and let's face it, there are a lot of those)
2: Blacks (self explanatory)
3: People who vote for "the little guy"

Personally I don't know who I'd vote for in this election, but it's a moot point, as I'm not a US citizen.

It's really funny how you Yanks use the word "socialist" as something of a slur.. You know, our Greek (conservative) PM would be a bit to the left of your "liberal" Democrats!!

If you note that I edited it afterwards, as I put in the number before thinking the groups through more.

And as for him being a small man, he is, when compared with a former First Lady.

I'm one of the many that went "Obama who?" when I heard he was running.

Well, your are partially right. He was small at first, but brother, he is a tall man now.

You showed 3 groups, not 4. I agree with 1 and 2, but he ain't no small man.
If you note that I edited it afterwards, as I put in the number before thinking the groups through more.

And as for him being a small man, he is, when compared with a former First Lady.

I'm one of the many that went "Obama who?" when I heard he was running.

edit: and note that I am not defending those that vote for him for these reasons, I was just making a observation.

They conveniently forget that republican administrations have them in high positions!

Wait, weren't you just insisting that having Black people in high positions makes no difference?

"Monsters and charlatan's could be any color", right?

Oh, but of course: when it's your politician who happens to be of a certain race, however awful and harmful to the Black community his politics may be, Blacks should obviously support him.

On the other hand, when a politician like Obama comes up who, while essentially "more of the same" politically, at least isn't actively trying to make things worse, Black support for him is clearly an expression of irrationally.

Hmm. Perhaps you should revisit your reasoning a little.

We also freed them,

No, "you" didn't free anyone.

and generally try to get them self reliant instead of welfare slaves.

Because all Black people are on welfare, right? And welfare cuts really just help the people who they cut off, who are just too stupid to care for themselves without your benevolent "tough love"....

Well, your are partially right. He was small at first, but brother, he is a tall man now.
Indeed..Should be a interesting next few months..(this time warp makes it frustratingly hard to see the replies to your own posts..)

Wait, weren't you just insisting that having Black people in high positions makes no difference?


"Monsters and charlatan's could be any color", right?


Oh, but of course: when it's your politician who happens to be of a certain race, however awful and harmful to the Black community his politics may be, Blacks should obviously support him.


On the other hand, when a politician like Obama comes up who, while essentially "more of the same" politically, at least isn't actively trying to make things worse, Black support for him is clearly an expression of irrationally


Hmm. Perhaps you should revisit your reasoning a little.

No, "you" didn't free anyone.

Because all Black people are on welfare, right? And welfare cuts really just help the people who they cut off, who are just too stupid to care for themselves without your benevolent "tough love"....
No, I never said blacks in high positions are pointless. Yes monsters can be any color. Support should be based on policies, not on race, but unfortunately, life is not like that. No one TRIES to make things worse, but some do anyway.

I did not free anyone correct, but a republican president did. In fact, many of the democrats of the 50's and 60's supported racist policies.


No, not ALL black people are, but I would say enough to make it an issue. They are NOT to stupid to care for themselves, that what the liberals don't seem to get.

No, I never said blacks in high positions are pointless.

You said that it was irrational to support Obama simply because of his race. It follows that it is irrational to support Republicans based on the race of those they place in high positions.

No one TRIES to make things worse,

Worse policy-wise. I didn't mean that they have the intention of causing bad things to happen, just that they actively support changes to worse policies.

I did not free anyone correct, but a republican president did.

Yes, in 1865.

Some of us aren't stuck in the middle of the nineteenth century.

In fact, many of the democrats of the 50's and 60's supported racist policies.

Right. They were called "Dixiecrats", and the Democratic Party of Lyndon Johnson ultimately rejected them--that's why they broke off with the election of 1968. The Republicans actively recruited them from Nixon to Reagan, and they form an important element of the Republican majority of the past forty years or so. Hence the Republican domination of the South.

They are NOT to stupid to care for themselves, that what the liberals don't seem to get.

Who are "the liberals"? Are there no Black liberals? Are there no liberals on welfare? Do they think they're stupid, too?

If you don't think they're too stupid to make the right decisions for themselves, why do you think that cutting them off welfare will help them? The whole ideology of "tough love" relies upon the irrationality of the poor: saying that cutting off benefits helps the recipients only makes sense if you assume that the recipients are too stupid to use the benefits wisely.

That attitude has always seemed to me to be far more paternalistic than welfare itself... which has obvious non-paternalistic justifications.

Exactly. For some reasons policy is becoming less and less important in this world, and this is not a problem unique to the US, either..(mind you race isn't the only thing that can cause people to vote for someone without caring a whit about his/her policies)

It's interesting that this is labelled racist but no attention, when weighing the pros and cons up, seems to have been paid to the consequences of not having black and Asian MPs properly represented.

This is not an anti-white policy, this is an attempt toward equality.

It's interesting that this is labelled racist but no attention, when weighing the pros and cons up, seems to have been paid to the consequences of not having black and Asian MPs properly represented.

It's not racist. That said, it's worth discussing precisely exactly what it is being proposed.

The negative consequences of not having Blacks and Asians properly represented is obvious, and "affirmative action" of a sort to remedy that would probably be justified... not that I think there's really much of a policy solution to that problem, at least from the angle of electing politicians.

But a policy of having a proportionate number of MPs who happen to be Black and Asian is a different proposal. It does not change the dynamics of racial power relations much: it just changes the race of the person who executes whatever policies those power relations determine.

It's interesting that this is labelled racist but no attention, when weighing the pros and cons up, seems to have been paid to the consequences of not having black and Asian MPs properly represented.

This is not an anti-white policy, this is an attempt toward equality.
That may have been the intent, but that does not make it any less mis placed, if you ask me.

Good idea, terribly performed.

They are NOT to stupid to care for themselves, that what the liberals don't seem to get.
but apparently, according to you, they are too stupid to vote for people other than on the basis on that person's skin-colour.
But hey! you're not a racist, right?

White candidates should be barred from standing for Parliament in up to eight constituencies in order to get more black and Asian MPs elected, says a controversial report commissioned by Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman. Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK, but the report concludes that, without a change in the law allowing parties to impose all-black shortlists, it would take more than 75 years for Britain's ethnic make-up to be fairly reflected at Westminster. Harman is understood to be still considering the report's findings in detail, but has expressed personal support for a change.

Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote and the author of the review, said talented candidates were not 'getting past go' at the moment. 'The change in the law is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut; it's not forcing parties to use all-black shortlists,' he said. 'But unless we take positive action measures we are not going to have a representative democracy for more than 75 years. It's not that we don't have Obamas, but we don't have the mechanisms for them to see the light of day.'

His report is understood to conclude that all-black shortlists would be needed for two decades, after which talented candidates could be expected to make it on their own. It identifies 100 constituencies with large ethnic minority communities as prime targets for shortlists, but concludes that positive discrimination would be needed in only four to eight of those seats for four elections in a row to ensure that the proportion of ethnic minority MPs matches the proportion in the population.

Woolley's findings are likely to be controversial, with any proposal to change the law risking a rough ride in the Commons. Last week, former minister Keith Vaz introduced a backbench bill proposing all-black shortlists, which was instantly condemned by Tory backbencher Philip Davies as 'politically correct' and divisive. However, Vaz is lobbying Harman for the measure to be included in a bill on equality issues later this year - meaning it could be on the statute book by 2009. 'She is the person who has a huge history of supporting these issues,' he added.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely disgusting, Isn't this is a violation of the Human Rights Act? It's illegal and even goes against UN/EU regulations. Aren't we supposed to be living in a democracy?

We all know theres no such thing as positive discrimination, its only positive for those who it gives an advantage due (whether that advantage be cause there gay, black, female etc..) and negative to whoever it doesn't give the advantage to (everyone else).

A stupid idea, probably from a very stupid person.

It's not racist. That said, it's worth discussing precisely exactly what it is being proposed.

The negative consequences of not having Blacks and Asians properly represented is obvious, and "affirmative action" of a sort to remedy that would probably be justified... not that I think there's really much of a policy solution to that problem, at least from the angle of electing politicians.

But a policy of having a proportionate number of MPs who happen to be Black and Asian is a different proposal. It does not change the dynamics of racial power relations much: it just changes the race of the person who executes whatever policies those power relations determine.

I'm not sure it's as much to do with racial power relations as it is to do with provoking a culture shift where over time politicians who are from ethnic minorities are seen as more of the norm - hence why the shortlists are seen only as a temporary measure.

It's superficial, yes but Labour introduced all female shortlists and since then there has been a notable culture shift which has left a situation where it seems that Labour is the party that is by far the most comfortable with its woman MPs.

Yes, they could be liberal's and socialists! *Gasp* Read my posts before responding and you won't make yourself look like a fool!

Obama's neither a liberal nor a socialist.

Yes, they could be liberal's and socialists! *Gasp* Read my posts before responding and you won't make yourself look like a fool!
since you like throwing those two terms (liberal & socialist) around so readily, then you won't mind explaining what those two terms actually mean, the differences between them, and how specifically they apply to Obama's policies.

Incidentally, when did the liberals starting possesing socialists?

You said that it was irrational to support Obama simply because of his race. It follows that it is irrational to support Republicans based on the race of those they place in high positions.



Who are "the liberals"? Are there no Black liberals? Are there no liberals on welfare? Do they think they're stupid, too?



For your first point I meant that it proves that A VAST majority of the republicans are not racists. To your second point, yes, there are black liberals who are just as elitist as the white liberals. The liberals, to me at least, are the democratic party elites and radical leftists.That is a very simplified version of my views on liberals though, so don't take it entirely at face value.

but apparently, according to you, they are too stupid to vote for people other than on the basis on that person's skin-colour.
But hey! you're not a racist, right?

I never said stupid, you did. People flock to their own kind, be it ideological, racial or religion. Considering the fact that there has never been a black president, it's not that surprising that they would want to vote for him. If a white man had never been president before, most white people would vote for him. And no, I am not a racist. But hey! Bigots never listen to the truth, so I might as well have never said I'm not a racist, right?


Edit: I forgot to mention, they might not be voting for him based on race! It may just be beacuse the major majority of blacks are leftists and socialists.

Of course, once again you fail to demonstrate that you have even the remotest clue as to what "liberal", "leftist", and "socialist" mean.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"

Wrong country, but still applicable.

Of course, once again you fail to demonstrate that you have even the remotest clue as to what "liberal", "leftist", and "socialist" mean.

The extreme extreme short answer to socialism is government supervision or control of industry. Liberals, at least how liberals act in my country, are anti-war anti-religious(especially Christianity) pro-abortion enviromentalists. They also support high taxes, government controll of or heavy regulation of buisnesses as well and completely open borders. Also very few security meaures, UN pandering as well as political correctness. Admittedly I know less about socialism than about liberalism (or at least how liberals act) but I know the basics.

White candidates should be barred from standing for Parliament in up to eight constituencies in order to get more black and Asian MPs elected, says a controversial report commissioned by Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman. Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK, but the report concludes that, without a change in the law allowing parties to impose all-black shortlists, it would take more than 75 years for Britain's ethnic make-up to be fairly reflected at Westminster. Harman is understood to be still considering the report's findings in detail, but has expressed personal support for a change.

Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote and the author of the review, said talented candidates were not 'getting past go' at the moment. 'The change in the law is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut; it's not forcing parties to use all-black shortlists,' he said. 'But unless we take positive action measures we are not going to have a representative democracy for more than 75 years. It's not that we don't have Obamas, but we don't have the mechanisms for them to see the light of day.'

His report is understood to conclude that all-black shortlists would be needed for two decades, after which talented candidates could be expected to make it on their own. It identifies 100 constituencies with large ethnic minority communities as prime targets for shortlists, but concludes that positive discrimination would be needed in only four to eight of those seats for four elections in a row to ensure that the proportion of ethnic minority MPs matches the proportion in the population.

Woolley's findings are likely to be controversial, with any proposal to change the law risking a rough ride in the Commons. Last week, former minister Keith Vaz introduced a backbench bill proposing all-black shortlists, which was instantly condemned by Tory backbencher Philip Davies as 'politically correct' and divisive. However, Vaz is lobbying Harman for the measure to be included in a bill on equality issues later this year - meaning it could be on the statute book by 2009. 'She is the person who has a huge history of supporting these issues,' he added.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely disgusting, Isn't this is a violation of the Human Rights Act? It's illegal and even goes against UN/EU regulations. Aren't we supposed to be living in a democracy?

We all know theres no such thing as positive discrimination, its only positive for those who it gives an advantage due (whether that advantage be cause there gay, black, female etc..) and negative to whoever it doesn't give the advantage to (everyone else).

Told you there was a left wing conspiracy to commit the same crimes against the non-minority that the majority once committed against them. When it comes down to it they don't give a fark about equality, they only want revenge. :mad:

And lets not forget, it was shite like this that marked the prelude to the holocaust. First the Jews rights were taken away then off to the chambers. "Positive discrimination"? Pah! Sounds like reverse-nazism to me!

The extreme extreme short answer to socialism is government supervision or control of industry. Liberals, at least how liberals act in my country, are anti-war anti-religious(especially Christianity) pro-abortion enviromentalists. They also support high taxes, government controll of or heavy regulation of buisnesses as well and completely open borders. Also very few security meaures, UN pandering as well as political correctness. Admittedly I know less about socialism than about liberalism (or at least how liberals act) but I know the basics.

Okay, yeah, you have no goddamn clue what the words mean.

Told you there was a left wing conspiracy to commit the same crimes against the non-minority that the majority once committed against them. When it comes down to it they don't give a fark about equality, they only want revenge. :mad:

And lets not forget, it was shite like this that marked the prelude to the holocaust. First the Jews rights were taken away then off to the chambers. "Positive discrimination"? Pah! Sounds like reverse-nazism to me!

As much as I hate this policy, I cannot agree with you about the intent of the thinkers behind it. I do not honestly believe that anyone is trying to commit a genocide against the majority. I do feel, however, that some people may have lost contact with the real world and failed to notice that we have a hard enough time finding half decent political leaders as it is without saying they have to be of a specific skin color.

Okay, yeah, you have no goddamn clue what the words mean.

Well, I only see what they show me, and thats what they call themselves.

I never said stupid, you did. People flock to their own kind, be it ideological, racial or religion. Considering the fact that there has never been a black president, it's not that surprising that they would want to vote for him. If a white man had never been president before, most white people would vote for him. And no, I am not a racist. But hey! Bigots never listen to the truth, so I might as well have never said I'm not a racist, right?


Edit: I forgot to mention, they might not be voting for him based on race! It may just be beacuse the major majority of blacks are leftists and socialists.
ahh...of course. The good old, "imply something and then when called on it, yelp , 'I never I never said!'" excuse. Haven't seen that one for ages. Thanks for taking me for a walk down memory lane.
If you're not implying that they're stupid just for voting for him because of his skin colour, then what are you inferring?


as for your "I'm not a racist"....yeah. What's that adage about walking and talking like a duck?

Well, I only see what they show me, and thats what they call themselves.
No. You only see what you want to see and just make up shit when reality doesn't agree with your already preconceived ideas.
Do yourself a favour and check up first what words mean before hurling them as insults. Makes you less likely to be an object of ridicule.
Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal)
Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

its so funny how these threads only get so far when most of the UK goes to bed (its 9:30-ish and I'm stuck working on a Sunday:mad:) a good indicator has been that this is 7 days old and not one of us Tea stained aristocrats has posted a thread

so hear we go:

1) this article is political rumouring aimed to bring the debate on inequality forward (which hasn't worked considering this article is a week out of date with no mention whatsoever)

2) Woolley's findings are likely to be controversial, with any proposal to change the law risking a rough ride in the Commons. Last week, former minister Keith Vaz introduced a backbench bill proposing all-black shortlists, which was instantly condemned by Tory backbencher Philip Davies as 'politically correct' and divisive. not going to happen then

3) However, Vaz is lobbying Harman for the measure to be included in a bill on equality issues later this year - meaning it could be on the statute book by 2009. 'She is the person who has a huge history of supporting these issues,' he added. yes this woman does have a history and this history means she is already ignored for the most part

4) no papers are reporting this and it isn't even on the Guardians front page (behind such breaking news as soldiers sperm being frozen)

I am just left to wonder how you managed to dig up this story? do you have some sort of BNP google?

Assuming that this report is accurate (people who know the UK papers better than me, is the Guardian a reliable source?), this is just as bad as if they wanted to ban any other race from running.

<Edit: there's also the question, is Harmen regarded as a nut for this and/or other positions she holds?>

The Guardian's very respectable indeed - a generally left-leaning equivalent to the venerable Times and Telegraph. Its sub-editing is a bit poor sometimes though, which is why you might occasionally it referred to as the Grauniad.

As far as I'm aware, Harriet Harman is simply another anonymous member of the New Labour monolith: fundamentally interchangeable with any of our other crop of ministers. They don't do individuality, it's all about corporate identity. This idea probably came from some think-tank or focus group, not a person.

Why does this not surprise me? I wonder if ALL of Europe will take this up soon? Then maybe the U.S can start it, heck why don't we just segregate whites completely, after all, they ARE Sub-Human.

-snip
Before we get all excited and get worried about how the evil politically correct liberals are oppressing the White Race, take some time to consider that this an internal Labour report applying to the Labour Party, not a government report reccomending banning whites from standing in specific constituencies. This is not any different to the all-women shortlists Labour already use in some constituencies to ensure greater representation of women. If you're really worried about abeing coerced into voting for blacks, nothing is going to prevent you from voting for a different white party or independent candidate - which actually saw a women labour candidate beaten by a disgruntled ex-Labour independent last year or the year before.

Hmm. Tricky one. Actually prohibiting caucasian candidates does seem like a step too far, even where I can see the value in artificially promoting particular features in MPs depending on the constituency.

'course, we all know the problem is that the UK lacks a decent PR system of vote declaration anyway. You'd find a wider range of ethnicities of parlimentary representatives if we didn't use such an "all or nothing" method of picking them.
I think that's a far better way of ensuring greater representation than shortlists, although I doubt it's ever going to change.

I never said stupid, you did. People flock to their own kind, be it ideological, racial or religion. Considering the fact that there has never been a black president, it's not that surprising that they would want to vote for him. If a white man had never been president before, most white people would vote for him. And no, I am not a racist. But hey! Bigots never listen to the truth, so I might as well have never said I'm not a racist, right?


Edit: I forgot to mention, they might not be voting for him based on race! It may just be beacuse the major majority of blacks are leftists and socialists.

But all the whites who vote republican are of course not racist, right? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but have the republicans run anything other than oldish white men in the history of the nation?

*sighs*

Positive discrimination is illegal here, therefore this won't happen, and the opposition is already against it. No-one knows what the Lib Dems think of it, but then why would you care?

For your first point I meant that it proves that A VAST majority of the republicans are not racists.

No, it doesn't. No more than "I have black friends" proves anything of worth. Racism is much more complicated than that.

For instance, a great many racists aren't necessarily antagonistic towards each and every black person. And even if they were, they would be gratified enough by the Republican Party's policies to support it despite its veneer of racial equality.

To your second point, yes, there are black liberals who are just as elitist as the white liberals.

Like Martin Luther King? How on earth can the Black Left be elitist towards itself, anyway? Because we're not just talking about academics and intellectuals here, or whatever you have in mind; we're talking about a group (black Americans) that votes Democrat upwards of 80% of the time, with proportions, I believe, that are even higher among the very poor.

The liberals, to me at least, are the democratic party elites and radical leftists.

We "radical leftists" tend to avoid the term "liberal" like the plague.

Why does this not surprise me? I wonder if ALL of Europe will take this up soon? Then maybe the U.S can start it, heck why don't we just segregate whites completely, after all, they ARE Sub-Human.

Some of us, yes.

Maybe they should pick a few districts and ban non-OMRLP candidates from being elected too! >_>

No. You only see what you want to see and just make up shit when reality doesn't agree with your already preconceived ideas.
Do yourself a favour and check up first what words mean before hurling them as insults. Makes you less likely to be an object of ridicule.
Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal)
Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

I don't care what they CALL themselves, Communist governments are never really communist. They are what they are and no pretty name changing will make them less than that.

But all the whites who vote republican are of course not racist, right? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but have the republicans run anything other than oldish white men in the history of the nation?

Up until now the democrats have been no different. Besides which, if condy ran, many many people would have voted for her.

Before we get all excited and get worried about how the evil politically correct liberals are oppressing the White Race, take some time to consider that this an internal Labour report applying to the Labour Party, not a government report reccomending banning whites from standing in specific constituencies. This is not any different to the all-women shortlists Labour already use in some constituencies to ensure greater representation of women. If you're really worried about abeing coerced into voting for blacks, nothing is going to prevent you from voting for a different white party or independent candidate - which actually saw a women labour candidate beaten by a disgruntled ex-Labour independent last year or the year before.


I think that's a far better way of ensuring greater representation than shortlists, although I doubt it's ever going to change.I can't believe that after reading through the entire thread, this gets mentioned on the last page I get to.

I don't care what they CALL themselves, Communist governments are never really communist. They are what they are and no pretty name changing will make them less than that.Yeah, well, don't be surprised when people treat you like an idiot if you act like one. And equating liberalism and socialism is about as idiotic as it gets.

Up until now the democrats have been no different. Besides which, if condy ran, many many people would have voted for her.

Way to miss the point. You claimed that blacks voted for Obama as they were black. I asked if whites might vote for McCain, for instance, because they were white. Care to comment on that?

Way to miss the point. You claimed that blacks voted for Obama as they were black. I asked if whites might vote for McCain, for instance, because they were white. Care to comment on that?

No, but then again, whites have always been in power, and we have many choices. Blacks only have one, if they had 3 or 4 or 5 they would be mixed between those candidates. Just like with whites.

Before we get all excited and get worried about how the evil politically correct liberals are oppressing the White Race, take some time to consider that this an internal Labour report applying to the Labour Party, not a government report reccomending banning whites from standing in specific constituencies.
Quoted for the fucking truth, peeps.

Yeah, well, don't be surprised when people treat you like an idiot if you act like one. And equating liberalism and socialism is about as idiotic as it gets.

I'm not "acting" like anything, they ARE liberals, they call themselves that and act like that. You can say that liberalism does not mean all those things. But you know what, it doesn't matter, because that is what it has become.

I'm not "acting" like anything, they ARE liberals, they call themselves that and act like that. You can say that liberalism does not mean all those things. But you know what, it doesn't matter, because that is what it has become.I'm not going to pretend "Democracy" no longer means "Rule of the People" simply because some dictatorships somewhere call themselves that. Likewise, I won't be considering liberalism as anything other than the economic anti-thesis of socialism simply because some country lacks a left-wing in it's political spectrum.

This just goes to show that the powers that be still think there is a difference between white people and everyone else in the world.
Should there be quotas for left handed MPs? Blond MPs? MPs who drive volvos? MP's who prefer Irn Bru to Coca Cola?
An afro carribean MP is equally capable of defending and furthering the cause of a caucasian and vice versa, just because a large ethnic community has a white MP in charge, doesn't mean that their views are going unheard.
It is assuming that an ethnic community would automatically vote for the "corresponding" ethnic person, surely they will pick the person who they think will be the best MP for the area?

AMK
xxx

I'm not "acting" like anything, they ARE liberals, they call themselves that and act like that. You can say that liberalism does not mean all those things. But you know what, it doesn't matter, because that is what it has become.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

I'm not "acting" like anything, they ARE liberals, they call themselves that and act like that.

Yes. I am a liberal, but I am opposed to socialism. I call myself a liberal, not a socialist. Therefore, I am an example of liberalism that is not socialism, and am living proof that you are wrong when you equate the two.

You can say that liberalism does not mean all those things. But you know what, it doesn't matter, because that is what it has become.

"That is what it has become?" No. That is what you are TRYING to MAKE it. There's a difference. One is a reality inside your head and your head only. The other is a reality that is so much larger that you are obviously having difficulties interpreting it correctly.

I’m not “acting” like anything, they ARE liberals, they call themselves that and act like that.
What are you on about? Socialists and liberals are no the same thing. At all.

Very basically, liberalism stresses the importance of the the individual, while socialism stresses the importance of the community. Merely being ignorant of this difference, or refusing to accept said difference, doesn’t mean that the difference doesn’t exist.

You can say that liberalism does not mean all those things.
Liberalism and socialism are two very distinct political philosophies. Equating the two is nonsense, pure and simple.

I'm not "acting" like anything, they ARE liberals, they call themselves that and act like that. You can say that liberalism does not mean all those things. But you know what, it doesn't matter, because that is what it has become.

Out of interest who are the 'they' you keep mentioning?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


Have fun with that.

"That is what it has become?" No. That is what you are TRYING to MAKE it. There's a difference. One is a reality inside your head and your head only. The other is a reality that is so much larger that you are obviously having difficulties interpreting it correctly.

Until you or you cohorts start living what you preach, I am sticking with what I say.

I can't believe that after reading through the entire thread, this gets mentioned on the last page I get to.
Well, it seems most people are determined to make it something it isn't.

Quoted for the fucking truth, peeps.
Thankyou.:)

I'm not "acting" like anything, they ARE liberals, they call themselves that and act like that. You can say that liberalism does not mean all those things. But you know what, it doesn't matter, because that is what it has become.
Call marxists-leninists liberals and classical liberals socialists. Then tell me they're the same.

Aside from being racist, stupid, and insane, I honestly don't see how this is going to work at all. It's an absolute nightmare to implement, and all it will change is which group of people ends up pissed off.

I could kinda-sorta-maybe see it working in a PR election system, but in a FPTP like the UK, it couldnt' possibly work unless you want to tell certain districts they have to elect an ethnic minority. And I'm sure that goes against British common law at some point.

I think the source of the problem is that it's a misguided end. If a constituency isn't mostly made up of minorities then there's no reason why a non-white MP would better represent that constituency. If they want the country as a whole to have its parliament represent its ethnic makeup then they either have to have every MP run in a national election or have minorities congregate in a few constituencies so that they make up a majority in them.

But even then, what good does it do. If, lets say, blacks make up 15% of each constituency, and two white guys are campaigning in each, well those two white guys will have to address the needs of that 15% in each constituency. But if they get 3 token black MP's in parliament, then the white MP's are free to ignore the minorities needs, because those voters are only paying attention to the black mp's.

Until you or you cohorts start living what you preach

Look, you have no idea what my "living" is like.

You are essentially saying I'm a liar, for no fucking reason other than you don't know how to admit it when you're FUCKING WRONG.

Tell you what: once you move out of the basement, and start working and paying taxes like the rest of us, THEN you can come back and talk politics. Why, then you can even criticize me and how I live and what I believe. But, if you do that, you had better be prepared to back your shit up with reasonable arguments, logic, evidence. And, dude, this:

, I am sticking with what I say.

doesn't qualify. So in addition to getting a life you had better be prepared to get the ability to communicate too. Perhaps an education.

Out of interest who are the 'they' you keep mentioning?

The great silent majority. In addition to being silent, they're also invisible, and at any rate not posting on this thread... but they're there!

Out of interest who are the ‘they’ you keep mentioning?
The people who don’t support liberalism, but for some inexplicable reason are still classed as ‘liberals. :p

What I meant was once the liberal party starts do what it supposedly is supposed to be doing, I will change what I said.

Aha, a clue. Can we have a riddle about which liberal party you're referring to perhaps?

Look, you have no idea what my "living" is like.

You are essentially saying I'm a liar, for no fucking reason other than you don't know how to admit it when you're FUCKING WRONG.

Tell you what: once you move out of the basement, and start working and paying taxes like the rest of us, THEN you can come back and talk politics. Why, then you can even criticize me and how I live and what I believe. But, if you do that, you had better be prepared to back your shit up with reasonable arguments, logic, evidence. And, dude, this:



doesn't qualify. So in addition to getting a life you had better be prepared to get the ability to communicate too. Perhaps an education.

Insulting me and TYPING LIKE THIS is sure to help me see your point of view. :rolleyes: It was a general "you" anyway, I was not referring to you in particular. What I meant was once the liberal party starts do what it supposedly is supposed to be doing, I will change what I said. Now, being rude and cussing at others is no way to win people to your side, if I can remain civil, so can you.

Insulting me and TYPING LIKE THIS is sure to help me see your point of view. :rolleyes:

Being called a liar for no reason other than the fact that you can't admit when you're wrong pisses me off. And I could give less than a shit if you ever see my point of view. From where I'm sitting you wouldn't be able to comprehend basic economics, let alone agree with my economic position.

As for TYPING LIKE THIS, well you see, using normal font style doesn't seem to work, using rational arguments doesn't seem to work, and I was wondering if maybe it's because you have some sort of vision problem.

It was a general "you" anyway, I was not referring to you in particular.

You were referring to all liberals. That includes me. Now, maybe you meant, "All liberals except those who are not socialists, since that would destroy my lame-ass point."

What I meant was once the liberal party starts do what it supposedly is supposed to be doing, I will change what I said. Now, being rude and cussing at others is no way to win people to your side, if I can remain civil, so can you.

No one here needs to be "won" to my side. As far as I can tell, other than You, Yourself, and Your Delusions, you don't even HAVE a side.

Look, you have no idea what my "living" is like. .

you say that^^^,
and then continue with the following..?

Tell you what: once you move out of the basement, and start working and paying taxes like the rest of us, THEN you can come back and talk politics..... So in addition to getting a life you had better be prepared to get the ability to communicate too. Perhaps an education.

way to do the same thing you said he did.

and on topic... if people can't rep themselves, the government should never step in. overcompensating (for whatever reason) like this is just as racist as segregation itself

and on topic... if people can't rep themselves, the government should never step in. overcompensating (for whatever reason) like this is just as racist as segregation itself

Before we get all excited and get worried about how the evil politically correct liberals are oppressing the White Race, take some time to consider that this an internal Labour report applying to the Labour Party, not a government report reccomending banning whites from standing in specific constituencies. This is not any different to the all-women shortlists Labour already use in some constituencies to ensure greater representation of women. If you're really worried about abeing coerced into voting for blacks, nothing is going to prevent you from voting for a different white party or independent candidate - which actually saw a women labour candidate beaten by a disgruntled ex-Labour independent last year or the year before.
I've highlighted the important bits for all to see.

The liberal PC crowd is at it again

This is a terrible idea, because it will force the closet nationalists into a more reactionary state giving more support for shitty parties like the BNP. Regardless of whether the intentions are noble, it's way too easy for the nationalists to spin.

you say that^^^,
and then continue with the following..?



way to do the same thing you said he did.

No, it's not the same thing. What he did was see that I claim to be a liberal, AND opposed to socialism. Therefore, since if true, I would be proof that his claim (that left=socialism) is false, he claimed that I was not "living" as I said, in other words that I'm lying (ad hominem) or that I'm not REALLY opposed to socialism (No True Scotsman). His assumptions came entirely from the fact that he doesn't want to admit he said something untrue.

Mine, on the other hand, come from observations of his behavior during this and other threads that leads me to suspect he is very young. I'm not saying he's wrong because of that, but it is a potential explanation for the perplexing behavior he's displaying.

The liberal PC crowd is at it again
Or, more accurately, the Labour think-tank crowd is at it again.

And this think-tank's suggestion is, to me, a perfect example of political incorrectness.

The liberal PC crowd is at it again
:rolleyes:

Likewise, I won't be considering liberalism as anything other than the economic anti-thesis of socialism simply because some country lacks a left-wing in it's political spectrum.

No, in the US "liberal" doesn't equate even in absolute terms to the usage elsewhere of "advocate of laissez-faire."

To equate the two is equivocation--your fallacy, not his. You might be able to challenge his usage in an international context, but he was using it--not that inaccurately--to describe a political tendency in the US.

Very basically, liberalism stresses the importance of the the individual,

Liberalism the political philosophy has never stopped there. It takes the second step of conceiving of the individual within society, and advocating public institutions in accordance with the problems that arise.

"The individual" is the starting point, not the ending point.

while socialism stresses the importance of the community.

In a sense, sure: it advocates extending the public sphere governed by collective self-rule. But it can easily do so on broadly liberal grounds of protecting individual freedom and equal respect and consideration for all citizens.

*Facepalm*

and on topic... if people can't rep themselves, the government should never step in. overcompensating (for whatever reason) like this is just as racist as segregation itself
That's why positive discrimination is illegal in the UK.

Is it too much to ask that Labour just do it's job rather than commit to more inevitably-failing social engineering?

I mean, hell, are any lefties here planning to vote for them in the next GE? I know I'm not. I'd rather have a conservative government that buggars things up rather than Labour's failed positive discrimination agenda.

Is it too much to ask that Labour just do it's job rather than commit to more inevitably-failing social engineering?

I mean, hell, are any lefties here planning to vote for them in the next GE? I know I'm not. I'd rather have a conservative government that buggars things up rather than Labour's failed positive discrimination agenda.
Quite.

I'd rather remind people of why we don't have a conservative government rather than having the centre-left dragged through the mud by what is a New Labour régime that's overstayed its welcome by about 5 years.

Liberalism... takes the second step of conceiving of the individual within society, and advocating public institutions in accordance with the problems that arise.... But [socialism] can easily do so on broadly liberal grounds of protecting individual freedom and equal respect and consideration for all citizens.
You’re quite right, socialism can (and often does) place importance on individual liberty, and liberalism can (and often does) place importance on community.

But as a ‘My First Political Philosophy’ introduction, I think the two definitions broadly hold.

But as a ‘My First Political Philosophy’ introduction, I think the two definitions broadly hold.

I didn't mean to object to your definitions... though I personally don't like defining socialism in terms of "community." I'm not even sure we have any real disagreement. My point was simply to challenge the assumption that liberalism (the political philosophy) necessarily negates socialism--that it is impossible to advance a liberal (broadly speaking) socialism.

I didn’t mean to object to your definitions... I’m not even sure we have any real disagreement.
But... must... argue!! :p

I’m a pedantic fool.

My point was simply to challenge the assumption that liberalism (the political philosophy) necessarily negates socialism—that it is impossible to advance a liberal (broadly speaking) socialism.
I’d agree with your challenge.

I’m a pedantic fool.

Haha... that makes two of us. :)

Until you or you cohorts start living what you preach, I am sticking with what I say.Who be these cohorts? Oh:
What I meant was once the liberal party starts do what it supposedly is supposed to be doing, I will change what I said.They do, and have been for the past 63 years. Unless you're not referring to German liberals. Then it would be 65 years, in the case of the Australian liberal party. In the US, the liberals are called Libertarians, albeit they're a rather extreme bunch. The Democrats are certainly a lot less liberal than the Republicans are conservative.

No, in the US "liberal" doesn't equate even in absolute terms to the usage elsewhere of "advocate of laissez-faire."Note that "in North Korea", "democratic" doesn't equate in any terms to "the people have a say in government." I won't be ammending definitions for a group of people that are in a minority.
To equate the two is equivocation--your fallacy, not his. You might be able to challenge his usage in an international context, but he was using it--not that inaccurately--to describe a political tendency in the US.I disagree. There are many different brands of liberalism, but someone can't really be considered a true, classic liberal (or "Liberal", so to speak) unless they espouse liberal economics and liberal views on personal freedoms. A social liberal isn't a liberal, just as a social democrat is not a socialist.

I didn't mean to object to your definitions... though I personally don't like defining socialism in terms of "community." I'm not even sure we have any real disagreement. My point was simply to challenge the assumption that liberalism (the political philosophy) necessarily negates socialism--that it is impossible to advance a liberal (broadly speaking) socialism.The pure form of liberalism does negate the pure form of socialism. A party that strives to be liberal is antithetical to a party that strives to be socialist (particularly on economic grounds). That doesn't mean that a combination of both is impossible, merely that it won't be socialism or liberalism that comes out at the end.

That seems very unfair. Although I can see their point that it would be difficult to get a fairer ethnic mix in parliament. If some sort of legislation HAS to be put in place, then why don't they, then, put the first 1 or 2 (or more, depending on the number of places available) people from an ethnic minority with the highest number of votes through, even if they aren't the outright winners of an election? [Or some sort of similar system] There's never a fair way to deal with that kind of issue, but it seems a whole lot fairer than purposefully omitting any 'white' candidates at all.

But, I mean, how would you define Caucasian? What if a 'white' person had a grandparent from an ethnic minority? They're opening up a whole pile of debates, and silly criteria if they open up that issue...

Meh I just don't see it happening. Besides we have a fine number of polictians from all realms of life, from many recial backgrounds, and we even have *gasp* wimmin!

Note that "in North Korea", "democratic" doesn't equate in any terms to "the people have a say in government." I won't be ammending definitions for a group of people that are in a minority.

When a totalitarian government misuses a term for propagandistic reasons, it is not at all equivalent to a general convention regarding the usage of a term.

"Billion" doesn't mean the same thing in the US as it does in the UK--does that mean one or the other is "wrong"? It doesn't even matter what the original meaning is, because the meanings of words change.

I disagree. There are many different brands of liberalism, but someone can't really be considered a true, classic liberal (or "Liberal", so to speak)

"True" and "classic" don't mean the same thing at all.

Nobody fits neatly into the category of "classic liberal" anymore, nor should anyone--political thought has progressed in the past few centuries. Liberal thought nowadays is, generally speaking, more democratic, more economically interventionist, and more embracing of (at the very least, more willing to talk about) personal freedoms.

Does that mean we have, in fact, now "abandoned" true liberalism? Not really. It means we have taken liberal ideas and developed them. There is no reason to think that the first people to formulate them came to the best formulation simply because they were first--certainly not the best for all historical periods.

It is worth noting that such ideas are called classic liberalism precisely to differentiate them from modern liberalism... if they were the only form of liberalism we would not need the distinction.

The pure form of liberalism does negate the pure form of socialism.

No, they are concerned with different kinds of questions. They are neither synonymous nor contradictory. The variety in "brands" of liberalism is rooted in the fact that "pure" liberalism is so flexible when we speak in anything but the most vague and abstract terms. From the basic idea that a political system must in a sense be founded on (or at least remain consistent with) human liberty, there are many directions a person can take. ("Liberal" in the US sense is one. "Liberal" in the European sense is another.)

A combination of liberalism and socialism is thus not a compromise but a synthesis. It runs perhaps against Locke, but hardly against Rousseau--and certainly not against the more left-oriented thinkers of modern liberalism, like, say, John Rawls.

When a totalitarian government misuses a term for propagandistic reasons, it is not at all equivalent to a general convention regarding the usage of a term.The general convention of "Liberal" is pro-free market and pro-civil liberties, not "the US Democratic party's policies."

"Billion" doesn't mean the same thing in the US as it does in the UK--does that mean one or the other is "wrong"? It doesn't even matter what the original meaning is, because the meanings of words change."Billion" describes one number in each case, not a complex system of beliefs.



"True" and "classic" don't mean the same thing at all.Depends. In this case, for instance, they do.

Nobody fits neatly into the category of "classic liberal" anymore, nor should anyone--political thought has progressed in the past few centuries. Liberal thought nowadays is, generally speaking, more democratic, more economically interventionist, and more embracing of (at the very least, more willing to talk about) personal freedoms.Proof of these allegations?

Does that mean we have, in fact, now "abandoned" true liberalism? Not really. It means we have taken liberal ideas and developed them. There is no reason to think that the first people to formulate them came to the best formulation simply because they were first--certainly not the best for all historical periods.The liberals over here aren't social liberals as they are in the US. The Democrats have indeed abandoned true liberalism, though to a much greater degree than the Republicans have abandoned conservatism. It's because the parties are so large and that there's only two of them that they've diversified their platforms to an extent where they no longer represent what they were supposed to be.

It is worth noting that such ideas are called classic liberalism precisely to differentiate them from modern liberalism... if they were the only form of liberalism we would not need the distinction.What's this "modern" liberalism?



No, they are concerned with different kinds of questions. They are neither synonymous nor contradictory. The variety in "brands" of liberalism is rooted in the fact that "pure" liberalism is so flexible when we speak in anything but the most vague and abstract terms. From the basic idea that a political system must in a sense be founded on (or at least remain consistent with) human liberty, there are many directions a person can take. ("Liberal" in the US sense is one. "Liberal" in the European sense is another.)Liberal in the US sense is a misnomer. The European one is more in line with international standards (see Australia, for instance).

A combination of liberalism and socialism is thus not a compromise but a synthesis. It runs perhaps against Locke, but hardly against Rousseau--and certainly not against the more left-oriented thinkers of modern liberalism, like, say, John Rawls.Socialism is an ideology espousing strict intervention into markets, often to the extent of planning the entire economy. Liberalism on the other hand espouses the free market. They are not compatible. Any compromise between the two can in no way be considered a synthesis of both, since they are in fact anti-thetical to one another.

Sadly, the Australian Liberal Party is not. It's a centre-right conservative party, although the odd 'liberal' does pop up from time to time.

The general convention of "Liberal" is pro-free market and pro-civil liberties, not "the US Democratic party's policies."

That depends on how "general" you want to be. The US usage of liberal is "general" enough that within the framework of US politics, its legitimacy should be recognized.

"Billion" describes one number in each case, not a complex system of beliefs.

And you want to argue that we should be less accepting of differences in meaning when it comes to things that are complex? Seriously?

Fuck, people have been arguing forever about how to define "liberal" in any sense... we never see those kinds of disputes with "billion." Surely that helps my case?

Depends. In this case, for instance, they do.

No, they don't. The use of "classic" is intended specifically to differentiate it from other kinds of liberalism.

Proof of these allegations?

What kind of proof do you want?

The liberals over here aren't social liberals as they are in the US.

Yes, that's right. European liberals identify with a different specific branch of liberal political philosophy than US liberals do. So what?

Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not talking about "liberal" in the specific political sense of the US or Europe. I'm talking about liberal political philosophy as a whole... which would probably include social democrats, insofar as they accept the reigning political system of liberal democracy and its traditional justifications. (For that matter, I would probably also include radicals--on both/all sides of the political spectrum--who oppose the reigning political system for essentially liberal reasons.)

You tried to show that the European usage is better by referencing classic liberalism, and I have been arguing that we can come to no such conclusion because liberal political philosophy is not so neatly narrow... not that the US usage would be illegitimate even if it were. Language has never been rational. Deal with it.

What's this "modern" liberalism?

Liberalism of the past century or so. Perhaps we could follow Wikipedia and go with liberalism after Mill.

Liberal in the US sense is a misnomer. The European one is more in line with international standards (see Australia, for instance).

Look, if you're just going to ignore what I say, why should I bother?

Politically correct... but is it democratically correct?

Yes...The OP states:
...it would take more than 75 years for Britain's ethnic make-up to be fairly reflected at Westminster.



However is it ok to fight racist attitudes with a racist law is the real question.

My answer would be no, however encouraging parties to nominate minority candidates and encouraging minorities to vote would be OK.

That depends on how "general" you want to be. The US usage of liberal is "general" enough that within the framework of US politics, its legitimacy should be recognized.The US simply isn't general, though.
No, they don't. The use of "classic" is intended specifically to differentiate it from other kinds of liberalism.
Yeah, such as neo-liberalism, social liberalism, and what-not.
What kind of proof do you want?You're allegind that there are no classical liberals. I allege you haven't looked, because I see them on the news nearly every day. The interventionist part of what you claim liberalism has progressed to is patently untrue if applied to the entire world as opposed to only the United States.



Yes, that's right. European liberals identify with a different specific branch of liberal political philosophy than US liberals do. So what?

Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not talking about "liberal" in the specific political sense of the US or Europe. I'm talking about liberal political philosophy as a whole... which would probably include social democrats, insofar as they accept the reigning political system of liberal democracy and its traditional justifications. (For that matter, I would probably also include radicals--on both/all sides of the political spectrum--who oppose the reigning political system for essentially liberal reasons.)Kind of silly to be using it at all then?

You tried to show that the European usage is better by referencing classic liberalism, and I have been arguing that we can come to no such conclusion because liberal political philosophy is not so neatly narrow... not that the US usage would be illegitimate even if it were. Language has never been rational. Deal with it.Liberalism traditionally favors center-left (i.e. freer or more liberal) social policies and center-right (i.e. freer or more liberal) economic policies. A party that veers far enough from that isn't really liberal anymore, despite the fact that some people still call them that.

Also, the "European" usage is "better" simply because it encompasses over three dozen unique political landscapes, whereas the American one can boast two at most. The "European" usage is simply closer to the universal standard of "liberal".

Look, if you're just going to ignore what I say, why should I bother?The vain hope that you will ammend your wicked ways :p

The US simply isn't general, though.

I didn't mean "general" to imply everyone. "General usage" can be restricted to context: the "general usage" of terms among philosophers, the "general usage" of terms among NSGers, the "general usage" of terms among US residents.

Language is not so international as to need universal usage to create meaning. If it were, our meaningful vocabulary would be far more restricted than it is.

Now, of course, when we refer to "general usage" within a specific context, we must be careful not to use it in that sense outside of that context. I would never use "liberal" in the US sense when speaking of international politics. To do so is wrong, and should be corrected. But Kontor was explicitly speaking of US political figures and ideologies.

Yeah, such as neo-liberalism, social liberalism, and what-not.

Right. All of those are forms of liberalism. Whether or not you find them to be "true" forms depends perhaps on which form you subscribe to, but the mere fact that they are not "classic" does not delegitimize them.

I allege you haven't looked, because I see them on the news nearly every day.

Do they favor property restrictions on voting? ;)

The interventionist part of what you claim liberalism has progressed to is patently untrue if applied to the entire world as opposed to only the United States.

To the contrary, the United States has, among Western countries, adopted perhaps the least interventionist sort of liberalism. The difference is that we never had a socialist movement with real political power, so the left-liberals kept calling themselves "liberals."

Kind of silly to be using it at all then?

Not at all. It's still a meaningful term, and there are still plenty of anti-liberals.

Liberalism traditionally favors center-left (i.e. freer or more liberal) social policies and center-right (i.e. freer or more liberal) economic policies.

Even granting that characterization (there are ways to dispute it), you still haven't proven your point.

There is a difference between "traditional" characteristics and "essential" characteristics, and perhaps that lies at the heart of our disagreement. I do not claim that "traditional" liberals lean towards socialism, or that "traditional" liberalism is synonymous with US liberalism. Rather, I claim that both liberal socialism and US liberalism are defensible in liberal terms: they meet the essential characteristics even as they differ from what may be reasonably classified as traditional features.

Also, the "European" usage is "better" simply because it encompasses over three dozen unique political landscapes, whereas the American one can boast two at most. The "European" usage is simply closer to the universal standard of "liberal".

Fine, then. When we are speaking in international, universal terms about political ideologies, use the term in its European meaning as you see fit. I will not object. In that context, it is probably the better meaning.

But do not criticize those of us in the US for using the term "liberal" in its US sense when speaking of US politics.

The vain hope that you will ammend your wicked ways :p

Well. At least our purposes appear to be similar. :)

It's almost as if Labour want to disaffect the white majority....actually, since they've done so already, I see little reason not to laugh at this, risible as it is.

I do hope the British electorate at large are thoroughly content with the misguided mediocrity they have elected since 1997.

There has been talk that Labour got in last time just on Postal votes, aka : Super Tamperable votes.

That aside, The UK electoral system is unfair. The majority don't have to vote for a government for it to gain power.

Therefore the Anti-Middle class/white government continues to opress people safe in the knowledge they will keep their jobs for years.

Yes...The OP states:
...it would take more than 75 years for Britain's ethnic make-up to be fairly reflected at Westminster.



However is it ok to fight racist attitudes with a racist law is the real question.

My answer would be no, however encouraging parties to nominate minority candidates and encouraging minorities to vote would be OK.

Well, it's a good thing that that's all this thread is about then, right?

Seriously people, learn to read the important features of the thread, like this being an internal Labour suggestion, not a government action. It's Harriet Harman wearing her party hat, as it were.

"Billion" doesn't mean the same thing in the US as it does in the UK

Say what? A billion is a number, how can you change the meaning of that?

Say what? A billion is a number, how can you change the meaning of that?

US Billion: 1000 million
UK Billion: million million

A billion is simply a name for a number, that can quite easily be changed. Heck, I can write computer programs that count 1 2 4 3 5, and all the arithmetic will still work (roughly). Renaming numbers is easy.

Anyway, you're wandering into fundamental philosophy of mathematics, which is fairly off topic.

Say what? A billion is a number, how can you change the meaning of that?

There's an American billion and a British billion.

Since when is the mainly white House of Commons going to bar itself from standing for what is possibly the easiest and best payed job in the country?

Seriously. Its never going to happen.

Since when is the mainly white House of Commons going to bar itself from standing for what is possibly the easiest and best payed job in the country?
An MP's salary is currently £60,675 plus expenses (Source (http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/pay_mps.cfm)) which, although not pittance by any means, is hardly the best-paid job in the country.

Say what? A billion is a number, how can you change the meaning of that?

Simple. 9 or 12 zeros.