Plan B Forum

With the selection of Rishi Sunak for PM, the conservatives have given the UK our first BAME prime minister.

Labour continue with "pale, male stale" stereotypes, never having had a BAME, nor female, person as their figurehead. Funny that, for a party who want to be so "right on" when it comes to rights and minorities and equal opportunities, they seem to be very "don't do as we do, do as we say".

Whatever happened to the concept of "the best person for the job"?

So long as we keep pigeonholing people with irrelevant labels like female, gay, or handicapped, or labeling them with acronyms like POC, BAME, and AAPI, we haven't advanced an inch.  You might as well be saying "he/she is a credit to their race or gender".

-"BB"-

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:24 pm

Whatever happened to the concept of "the best person for the job"?

Well, lib . . . sorry. Well Bill, that's the entire effing point isn't it? The chap has not been chosen because he's a brownish person of Indian descent. He has been chosen despite being a brownish person of Indian descent because he is considered by sufficient people to be the best (available) person for the job.

It's a sign that racism (and for others, sexism) while not eliminated are of such reduced significance that previously barred candidates can compete on more level terms. It has nothing to do with "he/she is a credit to their race or gender" which is largely a patronizing racist dog-whistle.

Your comments are not intended to suggest (I hope) "let's keep white able-bodied hetero men in the seats of power", but it sure reads that way.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 4:56 pm

Your comments are not intended to suggest (I hope) "let's keep white able-bodied hetero men in the seats of power", but it sure reads that way.

No, they're not.  I was merely trying to point out that once a person is tagged as a POC, or gay, or Mormon/Catholic/Jewish/Mohammedan, or, as in the case of Mr. Sunak, by ethnic origin, THAT LABEL suddenly becomes the defining trait of the person.  My contention is that these 'qualifications' should be no more a factor in selecting a person for a position of power and influence than that person's shoe size.

-"BB"-

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:52 pm

 I was merely trying to point out that once a person is tagged as a POC, or gay, or Mormon/Catholic/Jewish/Mohammedan, or, as in the case of Mr. Sunak, by ethnic origin, THAT LABEL suddenly becomes the defining trait of the person.  My contention is that these 'qualifications' should be no more a factor in selecting a person for a position of power and influence than that person's shoe size.

I think Mr Sunak has been aware of being a person of Indian decent right along. No one (except you) has described his ethnic origin as being in any way a "qualification". It isn't a factor, wasn't a factor and probably shouldn't be a factor - for this position.

When it comes to choosing a Minister for Women's Matters, I think it would be right smart to select a woman, qualified of course.

Whatever happened to the concept of "the best person for the job"?

Why do you insist that anything has happened to it? Are you suggesting Mr Sunak is not the best person for the job and the give-away is that he's not a white man?

A leftist woman or person of colour seeking to be the "first" anything, knows they are putting a target on their back, inviting every right-wing blowhard to take aim at that aspect of their identity to use it against them. Why would they put themselves in such a position?

Scooter wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:42 pm

A leftist woman or person of colour seeking to be the "first" anything, knows they are putting a target on their back, inviting every right-wing blowhard to take aim at that aspect of their identity to use it against them. Why would they put themselves in such a position?

What utter rubbish, (or that may be the case in the US and Canada?)

But even if you are correct*, what does it say about the courage, belief, fortitude and resilience of "leftist women or persons of colour"? Maybe they ain't up to the job in that case.

*you're not.

The one good thing about Margaret Thatcher - whom I despised - was that she made it OK to hate a woman politician without having to wade through the inevitable accusations of sexism.

Having said that, in the light of recent events, I really can say other positive less negative things about Thatcher: I think she truly - but of course wrongly - believed that what she was doing was for the good of Britain England. How far we have come in that it is even possible or necessary to write that sentence.

Well said mate.

Thatcher, to me, was a necessary evil. I worked as an apprentice machinist in an iron foundry, then for British Rail, leading up to, and into, her first term. Prior to Thatch the way the Unions were fucking the whole country over was a sight to see.

Gob wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:50 am

Scooter wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:42 pm

A leftist woman or person of colour seeking to be the "first" anything, knows they are putting a target on their back, inviting every right-wing blowhard to take aim at that aspect of their identity to use it against them. Why would they put themselves in such a position?

What utter rubbish, (or that may be the case in the US and Canada?)

Look at Obama. You couldn't have found a more "white bread" Black man to run for president, and yet at every turn those on the right tried to find ways to use his race against him. From the birther nonsense to those who claimed he hated white people and was fomenting racial division*, his opponents tried to make his entire candidacy and presidency about being Black. You don't imagine that the right in the UK would have tried the same tactics with a Labour leader of colour? Then you're dreaming.

And speaking of Margaret Thatcher, a large part of her success as the first woman PM was due to her doing her best imitation of being a man. Because she knew that her own party would see it as weakness if was seen as acting in any way "as a woman" or sought to advance "women's issues".

But even if you are correct*, what does it say about the courage, belief, fortitude and resilience of "leftist women or persons of colour"? Maybe they ain't up to the job in that case.

It says they shouldn't have to put up with that sort of abuse just because of what they are.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:38 pm

Look at Obama. You couldn't have found a more "white bread" Black man to run for president, and yet at every turn those on the right tried to find ways to use his race against him.

1. You racist!
2. The opposition using any method they can to discredit their opponent? Oh my, what a surprise.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:38 pm

You don't imagine that the right in the UK would have tried the same tactics with a Labour leader of colour? Then you're dreaming.

That's why I never claimed they wouldn't. Got any more windmills to tilt against?

Scooter wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:38 pm

And speaking of Margaret Thatcher, a large part of her success as the first woman PM was due to her doing her best imitation of being a man. Because she knew that her own party would see it as weakness if was seen as acting in any way "as a woman" or sought to advance "women's issues".

1. You sexist.
2. Quit making up unprovable points, or show her pissing standing up, or something...

Scooter wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:38 pm

It says they shouldn't have to put up with that sort of abuse just because of what they are.

"Oh me oh my, get me to my safe space, the nasty people ae being horrible to me.." Fine way to put yourself up for leader of a country. Seriously, if the left aren't going to have a female or BAME candidate until everyone agrees to be nice to them, how long do you think we'll have to wait? Or, conversely, if all the left can do is whine on and on about everyone else not meeting their standards of behaviour, how the fuck do you expect them to win votes back?

Gob wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 9:54 am

Seriously, if the left aren't going to have a female or BAME candidate until everyone agrees to be nice to them, how long do you think we'll have to wait?

This is getting tiresome.

In addition to being the most qualified candidate of either sex for the presidency in the history of the country, Hillary Clinton is also one of the most attacked and maligned women in public life in the history of the country - yet she has never given up or whined.

And yes our system is fucked up so even though she was actually elected by an overwhelming majority of the people of the USA, she didn’t actually get to serve. That still establishes the USA is more than willing to elect a woman. We have already elected a black man. Now we have a black woman VP literally a heartbeat from the presidency. She’s constantly maligned and hasn’t been seen whining either.

Liz Truss packed her toys and took off home in 44 days. Talk about a thin skinned whiner - or more appropriately, a woman not ready for the job and sacrificed by her party because they couldn’t get behind the brown guy.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:00 pm

In addition to being the most qualified candidate of either sex for the presidency in the history of the country, Hillary Clinton is also one of the most attacked and maligned women in public life in the history of the country - yet she has never given up or whined.

This is satire...right?

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:00 pm

she was actually elected by an overwhelming majority of the people of the USA

As I already pointed out, her California margin was over 5million. Her national margin was only 2.79 million.

So the rest of America rejected Ms. Clinton. Only by some 2.2 million votes but if you want to call that overwhelming, be my guest.

And I voted for her. And would do so again.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:37 pm

As I already pointed out, her California margin was over 5million. Her national margin was only 2.79 million.

So what's your point?  For every state you can show me where Hillary won big, I can probably find you one with the orange guy whupped up on her six way from Wednesday.  You win some, you lose some.  It's not like a season of football or basketball where individual wins-and-losses are the determining factor.

It's time to revamp election procedures.  One person, one vote, no matter where they live.   Throw 'em in a big box and then count 'em up.  Biggest number wins.

That's the way it should be done.  Fuck this business of Electoral Colleges and slates of electors and the rest of that bullshit.

-"BB"-

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:37 pm

As I already pointed out, her California margin was over 5million. Her national margin was only 2.79 million.

I don't know why, but that does remind me of "Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, what did you think of the play?"

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 3:56 pm

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:37 pm

As I already pointed out, her California margin was over 5million. Her national margin was only 2.79 million.

So what's your point?  For every state you can show me where Hillary won big, I can probably find you one with the orange guy whupped up on her six way from Wednesday.  You win some, you lose some.  It's not like a season of football or basketball where individual wins-and-losses are the determining factor.

It's time to revamp election procedures.  One person, one vote, no matter where they live.   Throw 'em in a big box and then count 'em up.  Biggest number wins.

That's the way it should be done.  Fuck this business of Electoral Colleges and slates of electors and the rest of that bullshit.

Midst that farrago, is there any substance at all? The point is that Clinton lost over 2,000,000 of her margin outside California. This means the rest of America voted sufficiently against her to put Trump in. The Electoral College had it right.

It already is one person/one vote - so get with the program.

And no, it's not "the way it should be done". The Constitution is designed to prevent mob-rule - it's a republic, not a democracy. You might just as well advocate that only California and New York votes should count and everyone else can go hang, if you turn to a simple majority and remove the EC.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:38 pm

The point is that Clinton lost over 2,000,000 of her margin outside California. This means the rest of America voted sufficiently against her to put Trump in. The Electoral College had it right.
...
You might just as well advocate that only California and New York votes should count and everyone else can go hang, if you turn to a simple majority and remove the EC.

You are assuming that California and New York voters are going to vote en masse one way and one way only, and these two states are the tail wagging the dog.  Seems to me you are doing a tremendous injustice to other populous states such as Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois — two of which went for TFG in a big way.

And let's face it ... the 2016 election was a battle of the sexes, whether you want to admit it out loud or not.  There are far too many people who still view politics as being a grown-up version of the treehouse/club with the 'NO GURLZ ALOUD' sign, and will always vote for a male, any male — even Larry, Moe, or Donald — instead of a qualified, competent woman.  So when these reactionaries were presented with a female senator/former VP as one of the two options they voted for Mr. "Grab 'em by the pussy" simply because he was the grabber and not the grabee.

-"BB"-

. . .. it's a republic, not a democracy.

.

That's bollocks Meade and you know it. If the definition of a democracy is that the people vote directly on every issue then there is no democracy anywhere and never has been. The US is the closest thing (IN THEORY ABSENT THINGS LIKE CITIZENS UNITED which I think is antidemocratic) to a practical democracy that there is. It's very flawed - I understand the principle behind the EC but you cannot replace the bullying of the small states by the big states with the bullying of the big states by the small states.

ex-khobar Andy wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 7:16 pm

I understand the principle behind the EC but you cannot replace the bullying of the small states by the big states with the bullying of the big states by the small states.