Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Alfie_Boy, May 13, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I can believe it (sadly) but Simon Hughes (Lib Dems) responding to the question of 'If this is politics of the future, why is it so represented of white, middle-class men', actually stated that this is an area where we should experience some positive discrimination in order to include some of the more so called 'excluded'. I then wanted to puke when Mehdi Hasan then told us all we should 'hang our heads in shame' due to not seeing enough ethnically diverse people within the cabinet / government.

    Now I have no issue with persons of any persuasion / background taking up posts of government but surely for whoever gets the job, it has to be based upon performance? I mean do we parachute a bunch of people into parliament to make us look a bit more PC friendly or do we have a parliament based around those who were voted for?

    I know the country is changing fast and EU/Outside influence is massive but surely if we simply put leaders in place to make us look PC then we risk losing effectiveness?
  2. I agree mate, Lord Heseltine came across really well and his points were both sensible and intelligent, a very well measured response.

    I apologise because my earlier post was a little rushed etc. I didn't mean it to come across any other way than can't we just get the right people in for the job based upon performance, rather than employ people because of their gender/looks/religion/ethnicity but moreso, why should someone be allowed to tell us we have to do it based upon ethnicity/gender/looks/religion? Mehdi Hasan came across as a complete chopper with no regard for anyone except himself and his.
  3. The most excluded group in this country are white, heterosexual, working class, non criminal males.

    Horribly under represented amongst the Lib Dems who are packed with expense fiddling criminal perverts.
  4. Gremlin

    Gremlin LE Good Egg (charities)

    Calling Hassan a chopper is overly kind. He was firmly implanted between his own buttocks.
  5. Positive discrimination is a tool used by those with an agenda to obtain cheap victory.

    All men and women should be judged on their own merits. Increasingly in our society we are able to do that which is why we see increasing numbers of people, from all walks of life, coming to prominence. Our universities have more female than male undergraduates now, that will express itself in later life. There will be far greater balance between the sexes and races.
  6. Yes he was a horrible arrogant little New Labour leaning plastic socialist, however, Hestletine lost all of my cautious admiration when he pretty much blamed the electorate for the hung parliament situation. His arrogance in this respect was astounding and almost eclipsed Harriet Harman's on the morning after the election when she did the same thing.

    The reason for the hung parliament was that no one party was good enough to win an overall majority, shit bust. If the Torys had anything about them they would've taken Labour apart, if the Lib Dems got some baws about them they wouldve done a lot better.

    Anyway back on thread, we live in the free-est most tolerant country on the planet, it is possible for more women and people of non-white backgrounds to get into politics, it seems there are simply not enough who want to. Wheres the problem?
  7. So the hung parliament wouldn't have anything to do with senior Labour ministers encouraging tactical voting to keep the Tories out? Not having a pop at you, just asking the question.
  8. Yes they did and one way or another Labour are out thank ****. They couldve done more North (and west) of the borders to convince any marginals to vote Tory, Labour were ripe for a shoeing and they totally missed the opportunity to REALLY hammer them, the most corrupt, weasley and discreditied government in recent history.
  9. I quite agree, what Im saying is if the Conservative party had been good enough, enough people would have given them a majority. Im not a partisan voter by any means, Im quite liberal but pragmatic, the tories just didnt convince me.

    Edited to add this thread isnt really about me though is it, sorry about the rants!
  10. No its more to do with the vast amount of gerrymandering taking place which will be resolved in the next few years. If some very senior people in the city hadnt had a word with the Tory's via Ken Klarke (from what I have been told by a number of people including Stiglitz) you would be seeing the scramble to another election in 6 months with constituancy reform rushed through - they actually extended the election teams contracts by 6 months at Conservative HQ.

    In the end policy and manifesto promises are second to economic stablity and rafts of cuts.

    This way the tories get to spread the pain with lib dems.

    that said people who voted UKIP arguably lost the tories around 16 seats (the estimate range is between 10-20) which would have put them in majorty terms with just one NI party supporting. So yes the electorate are to blame for being numpty's and protest voting for a Euroscpetic party in close marginals where they ended up returning pro-Euro mps.

    As for positive discrimination PR allows effective representation of women and minorities in government. The problem has arisen in Germany, where they pick these from the national party lists and dont stand them for the local element. Is that you get complete cretins whom perform woefully. If the future is PR then the future is an 18% ethnic (reflecting actual demographics not the ludicrous 25% figure banded around) chamber of compelete window lickers. Not the rare flashes of colour and brilliance we have now. e.g. Warsi. Ironically the ethnic minorities most intergrated into a party mechanism have been shown to the least appealing to traditional ethnic voters as they tend to be ideologically driven and thus reject their traditional ethnic origins. In turn being LESS representative of their cultural backgrounds than an ultra concerned PC cretin.
  11. I agree with all that apart from this bit, the tories only have themselve to blame for not quite being quite as effective or convincing enough to secure a majority.
  12. Agreed. As a society, we have given everybody an equal chance. The end result of that will be more women in government and in executive business roles. The important thing to note is that they will have achieved it by beating the competition on a level playing field.

    The idea that women should be given special treatment is not only divisive and unfair to men - but deeply unfair and offensive to many women who genuinely want a fair chance.

    The Guardian reading fuckwits who come out with this stuff are the same lot who are hand-wringing about the 'unrepresentative' white cabinet. It's another argument I can't fathom, given that 93% of the population IS fucking white.
  13. Gremlin

    Gremlin LE Good Egg (charities)

    Actually he didn't blame the electorate for the hung parliament, he stated that the voting had caused it.

    He also pointed out later that it would have been nigh on impossible for Cameron to have won without a 1997 style landslide due to the current constituency map.

    The reason that he said that the electorate had caused a hung parliament was that Hassan kept trying to insist that the Coalition was against the voters wishes. Whereas Hestletine pointed out that this was exactly the result of the voting pattern.
  14. Fair enough but the tories risked hemorrhaging the new vote they had accrued by moving to the right, a strategy that did not work in 2005. The numbers are not out yet, but one can't help but feel that with %age of the population voting this time around attracting that few thousand strong UKIP vote per constituency would have cost them seats elsewhere, especially in the more suburban swing areas.

    The point still remains, people who voted ukip in a swing seat were jolly silly billies.
  15. This argument takes me back to my graduate politics seminars against wooly lefty professors on their way out finally from the marxist academic era (e.g. a couple of years ago). There is this pervasive cultural construction on the left that someone can only represent a religion, ethnicicty or social class if they come from that class. Its to do with identification with the struggle and social movements etc.

    Which is of course complete bollocks, being a bit of a realist its a very easy argument to deconstruct and tear to pieces. The VAST MAJORITY of important social, welfare and religious liberalisers in not only Britian parliamentary history but in the Angosphere as a whole have been wealthy upper class white men. From Robert Owen to Beveridge we are looking at massively entitled 'disconnected' men who had the mental faculties to be able to appreciate issues and form policy accordingly.

    Wherein lies the rub, due to egalitarian theory, and equality the left find it catastrophically hard to accept that some people are smarter than others and perhapse the best way to represent a struggle in parliament is to put a very clever and ethically concerned chap in charge of it - rather than just shoehorn someone of the right colour involved.

    Similarly, the vast majority of femenists have ALWAYS been men because of the logical nature of the theory behind it. To appreciate the role of women in society you dont have to have pushed a baby out of a womb.

    Similarly you dont have to be a muslim to appreciate problems the ethnicicty faces. Indeed it is probably more beneficial to have someone look at the problem with a detached and cool head, given the dramatic swing towards fundemntalism third generation immigrant populations have shown.