Why Does Labour Have This Need To Discriminate?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29330744
Why is it that anti white descrimination is ok? Why not pick the best candidate regardless of colour?

[douglas9401]

Because they end up with plums like Miliband?

[Svejk]

people will look back on all this right-on PC stuff, one day, and find it hilarious.
Admittedly, it's not so funny if you've been a victim of it.

[Old_Geezer]

It's just a "demand" at present, surely. All inappropriate discrimination is morally wrong, but gets support and excuses from some of those who benefit and some of those wanting to be "in" with them.

[naomi24]

These ‘all black’, ‘all women’, ‘all whatever’ shortlists are patronising, insulting, prejudicial, and, coming from the politically correct, hypocritical.

[kvalidir]

I agree with Naomi, I certainly wouldnt want to be selected as anything just because I'm the 'token ginger', which is exactly what these 'women only', 'black only', 'gay only' lists are. I'd fee so patronised if selected on that basis.

[Zacs-Master]

But surely Kval, if it's an all 'whatever' list there is no chance of that happening.

[Zacs-Master]

The article has made my blood boil. The Labour Black Network (divisive name, if ever I heard one) states that 'If parliament reflected the diversity of the British population there would be 36 Black MPs' which makes the sweeping assumption that all black voters want a black MP.

[naomi24]

Colour prejudice will never be eradicated until people - of all hues - stop thinking in terms of ‘colour’. Exercises like this exacerbate racism.

[Zacs-Master]

As does the title of the Labour group.

[1ozzy]

What ever happened to the theory of "the best person for the job".
Regardless of gender, race or religion.
Filling positions based on gender, race and religion means there will be a variety of people in power that don't know what they are doing, a bit like the government now.

[naomi24]

Exactly, Zacs - but 'black' groups abound, and thrive unhindered by the law that says we cannot discriminate on grounds of colour.

[Zacs-Master]

I know, that's one element which has raised my blood temp.

[ToraToraTora]

OG:is there such a thing as appropriate descriminaton?

[jim360]

The problem with the "best person for the job" policy is that at the moment it invariably seems to be that the best person for the job is a middle-aged, relatively well-off white British man. At some point you might begin to wonder if this is because he genuinely is the best person for the job or if somewhere along the line there was some prejudicial selection process that excluded an actually better person for the job on some shallow grounds, such as their skin colour, or gender, or sexuality, or whatever other aspect of them that is utterly irrelevant to politics in theory but some people still can't see past.

Or perhaps, now, this is no longer the case mostly but there is still a relative lack of candidates with different cultural/ ethnic backgrounds. This does matter because Parliament shouldn't just be representative of the people, but it should also be seen to be representative in some sense. One can imagine a black youth, who grew up in the inner city somewhere, wondering if he should get engaged in politics, but tuning into BBC Parliament or switching on the news, or some such, and seeing an image of a Parliament which has very little link to his background; and so, he might then think, how can these people possibly be aware of the issues that affect me? He might even be right to some extent, although it's more than just about the skin colours of people in Parliament. But is it really so bizarre to suggest that the people who appreciate the best what it's like to be a young black person, and so would understand whatever unique problems that might mean, would be someone who actually was a young black person?

And then perhaps one way to try to engage people of different backgrounds in politics, to provide a decent first impression that it is, after all, relevant to them, would be to try to ensure that there actually are people of different backgrounds at the highest level of politics.

As long as first impressions depend to some extent on colour, race, religion, sexuality, gender etc., you can make this argument. Of course, in the future, you'd hope that you don't have to any more. But we aren't there yet.

[Zacs-Master]

So Jim, how does your reasoning work when, as The Black Labour Network want, all the candidates are black?

[naomi24]

//The problem with the "best person for the job" policy is that at the moment it invariably seems to be that the best person for the job is a middle-aged, relatively well-off white British man.//

Unless the job requires lengthy experience and expertise, I don’t think that’s true at all, and then colour wouldn’t be an issue. It’s often the middle aged who find it more difficult to get a job.

[jim360]

I'm not saying that I agree with the concept of all-black or all-woman, or all-[insert other minority type here] shortlists since the issue of tokenism does emerge. But there is a huge volume of evidence that suggests that, as long as selection panels (and indeed employers in general) are aware of someone's ethnic background, etc., then this has a significant influence on which candidate they end up picking. Something needs to be done to address this. It's very hard to claim that people are picking "the best candidate regardless of colour" if (virtually) every time they make that choice they go for the white one.

[naomi24]

//It's very hard to claim that people are picking "the best candidate regardless of colour" if (virtually) every time they make that choice they go for the white one. //

Do they?

[jim360]

The "middle-aged" bit of the description above does apply to MPs, Naomi. The average age of MPs after 2010's election was 50. 502/650 were male. 27/650 were from an ethnic minority.

It might not be the selection panel's fault, of course, but somewhere along the line there is evidently a point at which women and people from ethnic minorities either lose interest in pursuing a political career or meet some barrier preventing them from doing so. But if it's possible to put together sizable lists of candidates all of whom are women, or all of whom are black, then it's more likely to be a barrier than due to general lack of interest. Indeed if skin colour doesn't matter (which it doesn't) then why should black people be proportionately less interested in politics than white people?

And yet despite the fact that skin colour, or gender, etc, doesn't matter, Parliament is still under-representative of women or ethnic minorities.

In the long run we want Parliament to be filled with the best people for the job. 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. You're then selecting the "best people for the job" from a fairly narrow subset of the population. That's not healthy.

[anotheoldgit]

One can imagine a black youth, who grew up in the inner city somewhere, wondering if he should get engaged in politics, but tuning into BBC Parliament or switching on the news, or some such, and seeing an image of a Parliament which has very little link to his background; and so, he might then think, how can these people possibly be aware of the issues that affect me?

/// But is it really so bizarre to suggest that the people who appreciate the best what it's like to be a young black person, and so would understand whatever unique problems that might mean, would be someone who actually was a young black person? ///

Black youths are no unique in thinking these things, and what is so special in being a young black person?

One could equally say that there are issues that only effect white youths, and do black people consider what it is like to be a white youth?