Harry's Place

Can it get any worse for Labour…?

Labour beaten by BNP and The Green Party. hahahahahah oh let me savour the moment :-)

10 years ago, the political pundits were informing us about the death of the Tory Party. 15 years before that it was all about the death of the Labour Party.

Never say never in this political life.

Shit result at Henley, mind. ;-)

Its going to be a great weekend!

*grin*

That is all.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Can it get any worse for Labour…?

Given that in the last couple of weeks we have had 42 days detention, major planning decisions handed over to an unelected quango and Jacqui Smith’s truly appalling comments about Iranian homosexulas it is getting increasingly difficult to care.

They’d elect a cucumber in Henley if it had a blue rosette pinned to it. Judging Labour’s fortunes by how it performs in Henley is slightly misguided.

BTW, I hear Tiger Woods is shit at table-tennis.

10 years ago, the political pundits were informing us about the death of the Tory Party. 15 years before that it was all about the death of the Labour Party.

Sure , but they still suffered 18 years and 13 (probably) years out of power.

Losing to the Tories in a safe Tory seat is one thing. But being beaten into 5th by the BNP is another.

It’s obvious that Labour are going to lose badly at the next General Election if Brown stays on as PM. The question is could Labour fair any better with anyone else at the helm? Probably a little but not enough to stave off defeat. So that’s why it’s unlikely there’s going to be a challenge to his leadership before the General Election.

I guess the only question is whether Gordon will do the decent thing and resign after Labour get destroyed at the Election or will he try and cling on?

Judging Labour’s fortunes by how it performs in Henley is slightly misguided.

How can you say that with a straight face?! (okay, maybe you didn’t, I can’t tell from where I’m sitting…)

Labour. Was. Beaten. By. The. BNP. That’s worse than the Crewe result!

What Greg(2) said.

And you know the funny thing – get rid of Brown, who you going to get in? Blears? Haha. Purnell? *splutter*. Milliband? *guffaw*.

You’re totally fucked.

There is no part in harking back to the allegedly halcyon days of Blair; the shit’s hitting the fan now – economic woes, rocketing oil prices etc – but they still would have hit the fan had he stayed in power. Moreover, you shouldn’t see politicians as father figures.

This is the inevitable unwind of New Labour. There is only so much triangulation you can do before everyone starts getting pissed off – and they are more likely to do in times of economic discontent. The coalition falls apart. The sorry sight of Labour still desperately trying to outflank the Tories on the right – see Crewe (with a bit of pointless and fake class envy thrown in there) – is really quite risible stiff. Its not working any more.

They are left now with few principles to grab onto, as Cameron out-Blairs them. As Polly Toynbee says today, Labour has done and still proposes some good stuff, but the triangulation now is getting very damaging.

Beaten by the BNP is a truly horrendous headline. If Campbell was still working for them he would be chewing the carpet.

While i detest the BNP; there is some poetic justice in Labour being beaten by them into 5th place. Labour’s overt PC policies have done more than anything else to give a head of steam to reactionaries. Harman’s current attempt to legalise discrimination against white men in the work place is just another example of a bunch of leftwing nutters living on another planet.

You’re totally fucked.

The funny thing about it is how self-inflicted it all is. Brown’s mis-management of the economy during the boom years has totally bitten him on the arse now in the lean years (not to mention all the shoddy decisions he’s made since becoming PM); and as for the PLP’s ousting of Blair, quite how they thought a dour Scots man with all the flair and style of brick would make a leader people would actually want to vote for is beyond me. Ha ha ha.

Bring back Tony Blair!

Labour. Was. Beaten. By. The. BNP. That’s worse than the Crewe result!

Garbage. Or rather, there may be a lecture’s worth of theorising about the whys and wherefores of Labour being beaten into 5th by the BNP in Henley, but in terms of it being a barometer of the party’s fortunes, Crewe was much more relevant.

Harman’s current attempt to legalise discrimination against white men in the work place is just another example of a bunch of leftwing nutters living on another planet.

Another example of a right-wing nutter who cannot read.

That’s the thing, Greg. Brown, politically at least, is a gutless coward.

He ran away from a leadership election.

He ran away from a general election.

He ran away from a promised referendum.

He ran away from signing the EU constitution in public.

He ran away from the H&H by-election.

He’s incapable of giving a straight answer to any question.

He shows no sign of even understanding what conditions are like for the average Briton (he doesn’t drive, he phones people up at 6am in the morning for example).

He’s a leader of a gang of nasty unprincipled cunts who will do or say anything to remain in power (do Blears, Harman, Milliband et al not look at themselves on TV and realise what a complete shower of bastards they come across as?)

Brown also isn’t helped (shall we say) by the fact that a) he’s Scottish and b) he’s a jowly ugly motherfucker with the permament demeanour of someone who has just swallowed a wasp.

John Major, for all his faults, everyone will agree was a genial chap who tried his hardest, and now comes across as a national treasure.

I wondered how many years it would take before people would start praising John Major.

After 11 years, one person.

Maybe it will have caught on by next century.

That apart, most of what Morgoth said. (Although I wouldn’t rank Milliband alongside the odious and incompetens the mentioned int he same breath)

John Major, for all his faults, everyone will agree was a genial chap who tried his hardest, and now comes across as a national treasure.

“Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today’s events.”

Crewe was much more relevant

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I personally would have bet money on Labour going down at Crewe (given its rubbish campaign and the 10p tax fiasco); but losing out to the BNP in any seat? Never. Frankly, the fact that the BNP can beat Labour is far more concerning to me than the Crewe result.

Broon,

“”Harman’s current attempt to legalise discrimination against white men in the work place is just another example of a bunch of leftwing nutters living on another planet.”"

“Another example of a right-wing nutter who cannot read.”

Discrimination is discrimination – you may not read it as such but that’s your problem.

He ran away from a leadership election.

“He” ran away? He’s not responsible for no-one else challenging.

He ran away from a general election.

You mean he didn’t have an election when the opposition wanted him to? Like, that’s never happened before, has it?

He ran away from a promised referendum.

No constitution, no referendum. Very simple to grasp.

He ran away from signing the EU constitution in public.

Given no EU Constitution was signed in private, this is an irrelevance.

He ran away from the H&H by-election.

Haha. Self-indulgent Tory twat drops 80k bill on local tax-payers on a whim and Brown gets criticised. QED.

He’s incapable of giving a straight answer to any question.

As a politician, this puts him in a club of one, doesn’t it?

Morgoth’s Final Mark: D-

Must try harder.

And as if to prove my point, along comes Brownie, who like his namesake, has the gall to argue that black is white. Nothing is ever Brown’s fault. Its always the fault of someone else, according to the Brown brothers.

Its quite simple, Brownie. If McBean said the sky was blue, most people in the country would look outside to check.

I mean…

CONSERVATIVES 57%
LABOUR 3%

Jumping Jesophat on a Pogo Stick!

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I personally would have bet money on Labour going down at Crewe (given its rubbish campaign and the 10p tax fiasco); but losing out to the BNP in any seat? Never. Frankly, the fact that the BNP can beat Labour is far more concerning to me than the Crewe result.

There are lots of things that I think are less likely than Labour’s defeat at Crewe that I still wouldn’t regard as more relevant if they came to pass. Just becasue Crewe was predicted, it doesn’t make it any less relevant. And just because BNP beating Labour at Henley wasn’t predicted, it doesn’t make it more so.

If the BNP beat Labour to take a seat, then I’d take your point. But they didn’t and I don’t.

Discrimination is discrimination – you may not read it as such but that’s your problem.

When you begin to demonstrate some sign of having read the proposal rather than simply regurgitating Daily Mail bullshit, we can have a conversation.

And as if to prove my point, along comes Brownie

You have a habit of allowing your deep dislike of Labour to compromise your critical faculties. I enjoy pointing this out.

When you begin to demonstrate some sign of having read the proposal rather than simply regurgitating Daily Mail bullshit, we can have a conversation.

And this utter deafness sums up the Broon government in a nutshell.

When you begin to demonstrate some sign of having read the proposal rather than simply regurgitating Daily Mail bullshit, we can have a conversation.

Is the Guardian talking bullshit as well?

“…to recruit more women or people from ethnic minorities by favouring them in job interviews over equally qualified white men.”

Recruting people based upon skin colour is discrimination.

You have a habit of allowing your deep dislike of Labour to compromise your critical faculties. I enjoy pointing this out

Coming from someone who is doing a passible immitation of fuckface Blears doing her usual “tractor production is at record levels this quarter, comrades!” schtick, I guess this is a compliment.

Discrimination is indeed discrimination. The main problem with Harman’s legislation is that it is not an equality law but a positive discrimination one (and I wonder how the European Court will judge that). Look at the details about ethnic minorities, a complex series of who trumps whom, and the basis in the ethnic composition of the area having to be reflected in the workplace (or so Channel Four said last night). Anyone can see the kind of problems that raises. For example, think of any trade which has an ‘ethnic’ composition, say Chinese restaurants, would they be compelled to positively discriminate in favour of under-represented groups? Imagine this kind of legislation, (I am concentrating on ethnicity, not gender) on, say the building trade or chicken processing factories. Blimy I think I’ll apply to become a builder, as ‘English’ I’ll get a job straight away. The whole thing is designed for the privileged likes of Harman, with well-paid jobs that is, with absolutely no conception of what the real world of work is like.

A cack-handed approach from a government that looks increasingly cack.

My predictions for the coming months: 1) Contracting out of large parts of the Welfare State to private money-grubbing companies and ‘faith groups’. 2) Complusory workfare for the unemployed, providing loads more dosh for said companies and ‘faith-groups’. 4) Vast expansion of private prisons, contracted out to Hounstown Corp Texas, to deal with the workless who are ‘exited’ from said scheme. 4) Holy Willie Brown instituting, ‘in partnership’ with Blair’s Faith Foundation, national programme for local gvoernment to have statutory obligation to consult religious groups on their municipal policies. 5) Under 21s to be banned from buying alchool.

With these kinds of policies the future of the Brown Government can only become sunnier and sunnier. Onwards and upwards!

Brownie,

The Harman proposal is loud and clear in its fundamental objective to promote a culture of discrimination against white men. If you can’t ascertain that little fact from her proposal then is suggest you head back to kindergarten.

Who is this Broon fellow Morgoth keeps banging on about? Any relation to Bliar?

Andrew,

Yes and its that cack-handed approach which has made BNP more popular than it rightly should be. If we get a reactionary backlash in this country we know who to blame – Brown, Harman and the rest of the Labour scum.

Wasn’t it Sunny who instructed Brown’s people to switch their vote to Tory?

*duck* ;-)

Who is this Broon fellow Morgoth keeps banging on about? Any relation to Bliar?

Tony Blair has principles, unlike Broon.

And yes, you can quote me on that.

Broon has one principle, actually. Which is insatiable government greed.

P.S. “Broon” is an accurate phonetic spelling in Ullans. You’re now being RACIST! for mocking me. I want compensation for hurt feelings and for you offending me.

perhaps Maven will be chuffed at the result? A good bit of tactial voting there in Henley for the BNP. Sunny Hundal’s “brown people” prolly voted Tory, so he’ll be chuffed too?

Sunny Hundal’s “brown people” prolly voted Tory, so he’ll be chuffed too?

The chimp is uncharacteristically silent this morning. I wonder why?

One of the MPs most responsible for undermining Blair, Sion Simon
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-blair-was-undermined-on-a-day-of-drama-in-westminster-414930.html

wrote this 9 Months ago.Its pomposity and stupidity are remarkable

Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.

Stupit idiotic fucking prick.

Bloody Henley – its full of nasty skinhead chavs anyway.

They’d elect a cucumber in Henley if it had a blue rosette pinned to it.

Three percent to Labour, compared to 14% in 2005 and 21% in 2001.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Even now there are still deluded people who don’t get it. Labour could cease to exist at the next elections.

John Major won an election, with the highest popular vote before or since. I remember being distinctly gutted when he did.

Brown should consider himself lucky if he performs as well as Major in his first election.

I see many are commenting on the fact that Labour was pushed into 5th place by the BNP. The Right are gloating, the Left are squirming. But no one seems to be asking who voted for the BNP and why? Are they rabid Tories who smell red meat, or perhaps disaffected Labour voters who feel betrayed by the Champagne Socialist party that NuLab has become?

My money is on the latter, and it is serious for Labour, and for us all. What do such people want? My guess is that they want Old Labour, and see the BNP as closer to this than bourgeois NuLab is ever likely to be. These are the poor white male underclass, that are now likely to have a further disadvantage piled upon then by the deranged “positive discrimination” in favour of brown and female people that this government is now proposing. Still think the BNP is a “far-right” party (whatever that means)? Apart from its strong nationalist and subtle racist streak, the agenda of the BNP is strongly of the Left, and disaffected Labour voters can see it. I suggest all the BNP haters take this party a little more seriously. Lefties here should be seriously considering this question, and its implications.

For those who see me as a closet BNP supporter (no doubt there will be some), I can only assure them that I think their agenda is facile, their costing non-existent, their candidates Neanderthal, and their performance in local government abysmal. A BNP government would be as much a catastrophe as a Respect government.

“Are they rabid Tories who smell red meat, or perhaps disaffected Labour voters who feel betrayed by the Champagne Socialist party that NuLab has become?”

They’re most likely ex-UKIP voters

They’re most likely ex-UKIP voters

No. The demographic of UKIP voters and BNP voters is completely different. The demographic of Labour voters and BNP voters on the other hand…

But Morgoth, the BNP wear ties and everything now.

Alcuin, they are not just a “poor white male underclass” who reject Labour and not be able to face voting Tory. There are plenty of white people in what used to be called the lower middle classes who have felt cut adrift by New Labour. Telling Britiain’s hard working men who have put up with a decade of long hours culture, feminist attacks on their social worth and various schemes of social engineering justified by the search for genuine equality (this was not threatening them personally in the good times), that once a recession has arrived they could be legally discriminated against, was a very dumb move.

But no one seems to be asking who voted for the BNP and why.

I wonder how quickly after the next election Brown and his allies will be tossed into the history books. For the sake of Labour, it needs to be quick and as painless as possible.

Just want to agree with Andy Coates. Who is Leader of the Labour Party/Prime Minister is irrelevant, it’s the damage inflicted by their policies that counts. Irreversible damage has been (and is still being inflicted) on this country. I truely believe that it is irrelevant who wins the next election because many of the social insititutions of this country ie the Welfare State have been holed below the water ine. The latest issue of Private Eye had an article concerning rail privatization pointing out that it has actually cost this country extremely dearly. Whilst other state-owned railway companies in Europe have been able to proceed with electrification of the railways, reducing reliance on diesel, and enabling them to lower the price of tickets, this country because of its half-baked privatization has been unable to do so. After all, as far as the train operating companies are concerned, they love high proces and why should they put the investment in when their franchises are only for a few years? Incidentally, I agree with John Major have a genial persona. I know who I’d rather sit next to at a dinner party.

Harman’s proposal is discrimination *against” white men. It is being described on the BBC as positive discrimination, but they willfully ignore logic 101; as when one discriminates for one thing it *must* discriminate against another. A piece of string is only so long.

No wonder the BNP beat Labour in Henley. Harman’s message to white men – fuck off and die.

this country because of its half-baked privatization has been unable to do so

Privitisation was half-baked because of EU Laws that forced it to be done in the way it was done.

Harman’s proposal is discrimination *against” white men

This is, of course, complete bullshit

Having, until recently, been a member of the Labour party all my adult life, I just can’t stop chuckling. I guess I really am fully de-cultified now. Looking forward to seeing how they try to put a positive spin on this humiliating bum-thrashing, promises to be hilarious.

This is, of course, complete bullshit

“…to recruit more women or people from ethnic minorities by favouring them in job interviews over equally qualified white men.” is NOT discrimination against white men?

I’ve just come back from a very agreeable, unscheduled lunch with my wfie, so I have time to make up and little opportunity to deal with some of the drivel on this thread. However….

The turnout in Henley was just 50%, down nearly 20% on the general election. Nothing particularly remarkable about that, but unless you think the majority of those staying at home were disaffected Tories and Lib Dems, it provides some context for Labour’s showing. At the GE, Labour will reappear in thrid and….so fecking what? Like I said, what happens in Henley now or then is simply irrelevant. My rabbit can grasp this rather obvious fact, but it comes as no surprise to learn that Minoan and Morgoth can’t.

The new employment legislation doesn’t force employers to do anything, and those who talk about an anti-white bias to the proposals are, quite simply, thick as pig-shit. The proposals will simply permit employers to use race/gender criteria to separate applicants of equal ability. It won’t allow employers to select one applicant of one race over the head of a better qualified applicant of another. Moreoever, the anti-white line is recklessly inaccurate. There is no favouring of any race or gender implicit in the proposals.

Consider the following: a school has a shortlist of 3 applicants for a teachin post. All candidates are suitably qualified and perfromed well at interview. However, 95% of the school-workforce is male. So the head makes a decision to select the woman applicant to address the gender imbalance. The legislation will simply protect the head from accusations of anti-male bias if one of the other applicants decides to take his case to a tribunal. Consider a similar situation where the imbalance concerns ethnicity and the same rules apply.

The best qualified will still get the jobs, but there will be legal protection for employers of integrity who are looking to help rollback decades of institutionalised discrimination in the workplace. This measure is part of a wider bill that will force the public sector to publish pay rates in an effort to bridge/expose the gender wage gap, and also strengthens age-discrimination law.

It has received broad support from both the other major parties, although it is quite obviously the sort of legislation that a Tory administration wouldn’t dream of putting on the statute books, and is a good reminder of why the Labour party is still worth supporting.

I don’t expect any of this to stop the inane ranting of middle-class, white, male, right-wing nutbars, but then my expectations of that particular demographic are suitably low.

Herman describing the analysis of Harman’s proposal as discrimination *against” white men as, “of course, complete bullshit”, makes me wonder what planet you are on.

I would bet that to the large number of ordinary people who don’t spend their time in the echo chambers of the kingdom of the policywonks that this is not about treating individuals equally. It is to them discrimination, pure and simple. I have spent years working closely on these issues, and thats what it looks like to me, so what it must look like to people who just look at the surface prsentation of a policy like this, God only knows.

The failure of the cabinet to understand how this will be is seen by the public at large may explain the extent of the catastrophe. Our tiny governing clique have spent so long out of touch with reality that they think that they can announce a policy,decree that other views are wrong and then ‘move on’. Those days are over, and believing them not to be will lead to the electoral annihilation of Labour.

Our tiny governing clique have spent so long out of touch with reality that they think that they can announce a policy,decree that other views are wrong and then ‘move on’.

That also applies to certain bloggers around here.

Blair had to fall, humanity demanded nothing less.

so what it must look like to people who just look at the surface prsentation of a policy like this, God only knows.

The failure of the cabinet to understand how this will be is seen by the public at large may explain the extent of the catastrophe

Let me get this right: the government issues proposals that say X. The anti-government zeitgeist ensures the majority of the already antipathetic press misrepresent these proposals and mornic illiterates with an agenda likewise perpetuate the myth of anti-white bias…….and this is the government’s fault?

And people wonder why politicians spin?

Our tiny governing clique have spent so long out of touch with reality that they think that they can announce a policy,decree that other views are wrong and then ‘move on’.

You may want to check out the reactions of the Tories and LibDems to this bill. I’m not saying it’s an unequivocal welcome, but neither is it the unthinking rejectionism on display here.

“Brownie – You may want to check out the reactions of the Tories and LibDems to this bill. I’m not saying it’s an unequivocal welcome, but neither is it the unthinking rejectionism on display here.”

If you think politics is what is going in the House of Commons and its environs you will live to be amazed in the coming couple of years. Outside of this tiny world of courtly manners and formal, inward-looking discourse, there a massive social changes going on. This really was not a smart time for this policy to be announced.

As for the opposition to it being ‘unthinking rejectionism’ displayed only here on this blog, where is its support. The last time the electorate were asked to vote ‘thinkingly’ (if that is what we ever do as a crowd), was yesterday in Henley. The government’s programme was solidly rejected.

If you think politics is what is going in the House of Commons and its environs you will live to be amazed in the coming couple of years.

The last time the electorate were asked to vote ‘thinkingly’ (if that is what we ever do as a crowd), was yesterday in Henley.

Of course you’re right. ‘Politics’ is what happens in Henley and only Henley.

Technomist, it’s very simple: people – either in Henley, here or elsewhere – can and will debate the facts or they will just spout nonsense, whether it is of the pro- or anti-government variety. I’m dealing with the nonsense as it appears on this thread. It doesn’t mean there isn’t a perfectly coherent anti-government stance to be taken, it just means that this is not in evidence on this thread.

BTW, if I were a Tory or just a Labour opponent generally, I would be happy that I had enough material with which to batter the government right now that I wouldn’t be reduced to pretending that what happens in Henley in the middle of a Labour term was in any way significant.

Herman describing the analysis of Harman’s proposal as discrimination *against” white men as, “of course, complete bullshit”, makes me wonder what planet you are on.

But it is bullshit, and irresponsible bullshit at that.

Funny how those who think it’s hilarious the BNP beat Labour last night have no compunction about spreading this type of lie.

Morgoth: Not quite the sibject of the thread but, if the rail privatization was done in the way it was at the behest of the EC, how come the other European countries aren’t in the same mess?

As for the anti-discrimination legislation: Haha. Lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee. Within the last week we’ve seen a woman win a case that she was discriminated against for wearing a hijab, and now one of the top cops in the country is claiming racial discrimination against the Metropolitain Police. This country is being paralysed by all this do-gooding.

Logically, if a white and a brown person have the same qualifications and the brown person is chosen over the white person, then this is discrimination in favour of the brown person and against the white person.

Brownie?

how come the other European countries aren’t in the same mess?

Because they told the EU Commissars where to stick their laws…

Brownie,

Honestly how can you support an inane and divisive proposal such a Harmans? If its not going to have any effect, which appears to be what some people laughingly argue in it’s favour, then what is the point of it? Or If it is supposed to encourage “positive” discrimination, then someone – in this case white men – will be discriminated against.

If you are representative of the stereotypical Labour supporter then you guys really are doomed at the next election and probably for years to come.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Glad to see the Greens doing well at last too. I would hazard a guess that at least 50% of those who voted BNP were lifelong Labour supporters.

Brownie, I think your defence of the Harman idiocy is peculiar. Surely you can see it is absurd, even if just on tactical grounds, to put into place at this time a piece of legislation that allows, even with a lot of hedging, discrimination by sex or race? Legislated racial discrimination is, surely, not something we really need, especially not now, no matter how admirable we may think the motives? And if it is not racial discrimination to prefer a job candidate because of her colour, what is it? All this talk of ‘candidates of equal ability’ is, of course, tosh. As Pootergeek points out, those candidates do not exist. So what is going on?

Who is Leader of the Labour Party/Prime Minister is irrelevant

Wishful thinking there. Personality does make a difference.

BNP voters are mostly working class that feel they’ve been given a raw deal. I’ve spoken to several, who feel angry at Labour and have suggested they may vote BNP.

They are rarely (but sometimes) wealthy previous Tory supporters.

Logically, if a white and a brown person have the same qualifications and the brown person is chosen over the white person, then this is discrimination in favour of the brown person and against the white person.

Firstly, the accusation is that there is specifically an anti-white bias. In your above scenario, it could be the white applicant who is selected because the majority of employees at a particular company are ethnic minorities. The legislation is colour-blind, which is why talk of “anti-white bias” is doing the work of the BNP.

Secondly, as the proposed legislation does not force employers to do anything (and only provides legal cover if they use gender/race as separation criteria in the event of equal candidates), it cannot and does not do anything to prevent employers from perpetuating institutionalised race discrimination. If an employer wants to discriminate against white/black/brown prospective employees, then absent those victims of discrimination going to tribunal and winning, there isn’t an awful lot we can do about it. Once again, this legislation is designed to provide cover to employers who want to do something about employment discrimination but who currently fear censure if they do.

Lastly, the issue for me – and what I would hope is the issue for most people – is whether the proposals are objectively fair. Whether you want to call it positive discrimination, positive action, anti-discrimination practice or whatever, hardly matters as much as whether the policy is just.

If you have a set of scales that are weighed down at one end and you positively act to ensure the scales subsequently balance, there is nothing intrinsically unjust in your actions. To stare at the scales for decades pretending there is nothing you can do about the fact that they are out of balance is, however, an abdication of responsibility and an abandonment of principle writ large.

Honestly how can you support an inane and divisive proposal such a Harmans

Why don’t you ask the Tories and LibDems?

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That’s me beaten.

In your above scenario, it could be the white applicant who is selected because the majority of employees at a particular company are ethnic minorities.

Ye gods. Did Brownie just justify racism against white people by…justifying racism against brown people?

And people wonder why Labour is fucked.

The Pub Philosophe has taken time to actually read Harriet’s white paper, he doesn’t think it’s likely to make a great deal of difference anyway.

I’m new to this forum. I just wanted to say hello Brownie. You seem to be someone who genuinely supports Gordon Brown and thinks he’s doing a good job. I’ve never come across anyone like that. I feel as if I have stumbled across a very rare and fascinating creature. Anyway. Carry on.

“Ye gods. Did Brownie just justify racism against white people by…justifying racism against brown people?”

Yes, it’s all a bit ‘Decline and Fall’, isn’t it?

Brownie, if I have understood from your explanations corrctly, under the new legislation it would be legal for me to run a job add that included the following: ‘We are an equal opportunities employer, but, all other things being equal, we will always prefer to employ white people’. And that is a GOOD thing? That is what a Labour government should be spending its last months in power legislating for? Strewth!

That is what a Labour government should be spending its last months in power legislating for? Strewth!

They are merely streamlining the law. From marvin’s site:

The BBC reckons that the bill will replace “116 different pieces of equality legislation in force, including 35 acts, 52 statutory instruments, 13 codes of practice and 16 European Commission directives”.

Good!

“They are merely streamlining the law. From marvin’s site:”

You’d think they would have the wit to explain that, wouldn’t you, and you might wonder why they have made such a big noise over a bit of house-keeping? But hang on, if that is the case Brownie’s explanations cannot be accurate, can they? I’m right that we cannot, as things stand, have a policy of preferring white job applicants should other things be equal, can we?

Whatever else you make of this, it is yet another demonstration of the political incompetence that has taken root since Tony’s departure. I wonder if Brown even knew about this before it was announced.

Graham, they are streamlining the law in the same way that the Treaty of Lisbon streamlined the EU – they shoved in a load of extra stuff for good measure.

Some of the bill’s provisions will weigh heavily on both public and private sector organisations.

But, as Marvin says, the positive discrimination provisions are so mild that they will probably make hardly any difference at all.

You can only discriminate if you can show that both applicants were equally qualified, a tall order in itself, and that you are doing it to redress a balance. Also, you are not allowed to make positive discrimination a company policy. It has to be justified on a case by case basis.

The number of times when this will actually happen will probably be few and far between.

Ye gods. Did Brownie just justify racism against white people by…justifying racism against brown people?

No, what he did was demosntrate that the accusation of “anti-white bias” is the mountain of horseshit I called it as.

I’m new to this forum.

And yet it’s as if I’ve read your attempt at irony a thousand times before….

All this talk of ‘candidates of equal ability’ is, of course, tosh. As Pootergeek points out, those candidates do not exist.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. I think too many people confuse “equal candidates” with “identical candidates”.

I concede that you very rarely have two candidates who have the same attributes and flaws, but it is hardly uncommon – in my experience – to come to the end of a selection process and have two or more candidates where the sums of the respective parts are equal, or as near as dammit equal. One performs better at the written tests, the other better at interview. One has slghitly better qualifications, the other more relevant work experience. I have, literally, spun a coin before and on other occasions gone with nothing more than gut instinct (which is like spinning a coin without the coin). The proposed legislation will permit eployers who, when faced with the same situation, are allowed to look at the balance of their work-force and make a conscious decision to employ candidate X because s/he will contribute to the diverse working environment the employer wants to promote, addressing any imbalances therein. Employers who don’t wish to factor this into the equation will not be compelled to.

Seriously, what is the issue?

Brownie, if I have understood from your explanations corrctly…

That’s an easy one. You haven’t.

No, what he did was demosntrate that the accusation of “anti-white bias” is the mountain of horseshit I called it as

No, you supported one form of racism by appealing to another.

Honestly, Brownie, catch a grip of yourself. When it comes to Broon and the Labour Party, you’re totally unhinged. You getting into Patricia Hewitt territory of utter shamefaced ludicrousness.

Some of the bill’s provisions will weigh heavily on both public and private sector organisations.

When did I last hear that? Oh yeah, minimum wage.

Privitisation was half-baked because of EU Laws that forced it to be done in the way it was done.

No true. EU regulations required track and train services to be operationally separate but they didn’t need to be sold off separately. The privatisation was half baked because it was done in a rush to ensure it happened before the 97 election and because it was planned by people who knew nothing about railways and were just doing it for idealogical reasons.

No, you supported one form of racism by appealing to another.

Either you claim the law is biased against white men, or you claim the law allows one form of racism to be played against another. Both claims are utter bollocks, but even my 3-year-old can work out that you can’t claim both at the same time.

Yes, because BOTH are racism, Brownie. And you have, on the record here, defend racist job-hiring practises. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Andrew, that’s what I said. And frankly, the UK shouldn’t have a passenger rail network anyway. Far better to turn it into a dedicated freight transport network.

Brownie, so you admit that the legislation will allow employers to use gender/race criteria in reference to ‘diversity’ and the ‘balance of their workforce’ when selecting candidates for employment.

Firstly, what right does the state have to permit bosses to make decisions about having someone work for them on the grounds of their (the boss’s) perception of what is the correct ‘balance’ of the workforce? What exactly is ‘diversity’? On Channel Four it was suggested that this referred to the ethnic/gender composition of the community. Which community? Is there going to be some government department providing bar charts for every area of the country listing the race/gender composition of the ‘community’ which should ideally be represented in the enterprises – concurrence of employers desirable but not obligatory?

Secondly, I persist and sign on this one: the legislation represents the politics of the likes of Harman who promote the interests of well-educated professional women, and similarly well-educated professional ‘ethnic’ minorities. Were I in one of these categories I would support it. I am serious, personal advancement is a reasonable goal and removing barriers in these circumstances is right. Though there are plenty of careerists, well-known to many of us, who have already taken advantage of this (known in left circles as ASAs – ‘as a women, etc’). But apply this kind of conception to the workforce as a whole and you have a recipe for disaster. Apart from potential court cases (already mentioned by others) there is the potential for massive conflict inside firms and separation of people on ‘ethnic’ grounds above all. And what of mixed race people, or what were known archaically as ‘quadroons’, and what kind of hierarchy of races is in play: Iranians get less points (since they are ‘white’) than, say Central Africans. There are so many ‘ethnic’ groups in the UK who is to say that, for example, the Scots may be over/under represented. Apply these criteria to the real world of work (and not the kind of privileged one Harman and friends inhabit) and one can see that the idea of ‘balance’ and ‘diversity’ (eg: increase diversity in employment in Balti Houses) is complete gobsite.

To put the possibility for a quota system permits its extension to, say, University education, where the 1930s experience of Central European Jewish students shows the results this (voluntary at present) kind of arrangement offers.

Thirdly(always got to be a third), the principle behind this legislation is the racist multiculturalism that divides people into ‘communities’, and refuses to deal with such difficult issues as real poverty and deprivation. Of the fact the problem is not promoting equality of ‘opportunity’ but some real equality so that the working class (probably the most racially mixed group in the UK) so that they do not have spend their time worrying about utility bills, taxes, food prices, and the precarious lousy conditions of work. Or indeed the coercion of the unemployment system that sends them (already) off to gim-crack greedy private companies, who couldn’t train a bat to hover, then exploited by employers on ‘placements’, and hectored about ‘diversity’ (even though a large proportion are partly or wholly Afro-Caribbean) by do-gooders anxious to make the great unwashed respectable. On this I note in passing that the working class loathes Brown more for this list of greivences more than for his alleged favouritism towards ethnic minorities.

I though we had outgrown this kind of rubbish when Linda Bellows fucked off (she is now some kind of social worker, on diversity and disability issues I am told).

Still, no doubt the next legislation will try to (1) Enforce this voluntary practice. (2) Extend it religious groups.

And frankly, the UK shouldn’t have a passenger rail network anyway.

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Estonia (more neo-liberal a state you will not find) tried that one, maybe not so much through planning to do so but by failing to consider the consequences of its actions. Sold off its railways, with the largest chunk going to a consortium of US and UK companies. Complete bloody disaster (not least as the roads in that part of Europe were absolutely awful – - as the death toll on them will confirm ,although Latvia is worse still).

Basically, end of passenger rail services (except for a few electric ones to the suburbs of Tallinn).

Thankfully even the ultra neo-liberal (I repeat: bar none) government of Estonia (i repeat: the ne plus ultra of economically liberal states) realised this was utter foolishness (something bloody New Labour never do: so arrogant and foolishly self-assured are they: taking “never backing down” as a principle might work if your policies were sound in the first place, but if not…), bit the bullet, and renationalised the railways a couple of years ago.

Passenger and freight transport can co-exist.

The ‘equality’ proposal is a rallying to call to everyone who wants to finish off this discredited bunch of Stasi PC mongers.

Why should a relatively low paid gentleman like myself be discriminated against in the marketplace because whites like Balls and Harmond have taken all the best jobs. Im only half joshing about this chaps. These Labourite idiots seems to genuinely believe all these white male Britons are just waltzing into jobs without a care in the world. The facts just dont back this up. I can think of numerous large companies who already choose an ethnic minority or woman over a white male in the results of a tie.

And let us not forget, the majority of the jobs created during the benign economic period have been filled by foreign migrants.
Why dont these trolls lead by example and reisign their posts in cabinet for being male and white.

Yes, because BOTH are racism, Brownie. And you have, on the record here, defend racist job-hiring practises. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You sound like Sunny claiming propsoed anti-terror legislation is inherently discriminatory against brown Muslims because….

Let me spell it out:

The law is colour-blind. A white male could benefit from its application as easily as a black woman. If more black women benefit than wihte males, then this would be because the current imbalance is one which which sees a shortage of black woman employeed rather than white males.

You can criticise this a thousand times sideways and claim, as you do, that it is playing one form of racism against another. But to claim it is anti-white bias is, as I’ve shown, utter horseshit. That’s H.O.R.S.E.S.H.I.T.

You can only discriminate if you can show that both applicants were equally qualified, a tall order in itself, and that you are doing it to redress a balance.

Yes so it exists mainly for cases which have gone to tribunal (in order to cover the company) in a case -such as my own which I mentioned yesterday where a senior team of people who are all female decide to take on me – a male of lesser ability than some other females already employed by the organisation- because an all female senior group would be off-putting to any other males wishing to take up the job and one of the “passed-over” females says “Oi! I am equally as qualified as him – lets take this to a tribunal”.

“That’s an easy one. You haven’t.”

Well, perhaps you would explain how I have misunderstood.If I am entitled (as you have said I would be) under this legislation to prefer white candidates over other, equally (but not better) qualified others, why would I be prevented from advertising that?

“When did I last hear that? Oh yeah, minimum wage.”

And the jury’s out on that one.

And frankly, the UK shouldn’t have a passenger rail network anyway.

On the contrary it should be expanded. What the UK doesn’t need is a road network (turnpikes are so passe.)

(Ducks)

“All this talk of ‘candidates of equal ability’ is, of course, tosh. As Pootergeek points out, those candidates do not exist.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. I think too many people confuse “equal candidates” with “identical candidates”.

I concede that you very rarely have two candidates who have the same attributes and flaws, but it is hardly uncommon.”

Brownie, I g=agree it is rare. I have participated only once in my career where a recruitment panel came across 2 candidates who really were as good as each other. In the end,the selection was made on entirely irrelevant criteria – one had been to the same university as one of the interviewers, so we could be more confident about our choice, as regards the quality of her very good grades having some substance to them. This is rare.

I have however seen racial and sexual discrimination occur many times in the public and voluntary sectors under the guise of ‘equal opportunities’, where ideologically driven people decided to take social engineering into their own hands and appoint people from perceived ‘disadvantaged’ groups or backgrounds despite there being better people available, who were passed over, usually because they were elderly. Almost invariably, though not always, the victims of this were also white.

At least when this happened people told lies about what they were doing and pretended that the inferior candidate was in fact the superior one. They usually did this by giving a disproportionate amount of weight to only one of the ‘desirable criteria’ for a job.

Under this legislation, these things will carry on. Only now, these social engineers will just pretend everyone is equal and then say the discrimination they are up to is legal. These practices are far more common in the voluntary and public sector than people realize, where white people have often been excluded from opportunities, in the misguided belief that this will right some historic wrong.

“Brownie, I agree it is rare. ”

Personally, I have never met two candidates of equal merit. Often the were pretty balanced, with different sets of strengths and weaknesses, but it is entirely reasonable to weight your decision based on a preference for one skill set over another for purely professional reasons (A has better qualies but less experience than B, and we have decided that i n the circs, experience is the trump, for example). To pass a law to govern the vanishingly few cases (unimaginable to me) where candidates were of exactly equal strength, seems absurd.

It is absurd, and its not the signal that is being sent. What is being sent, and heard, is even worse than absurd- white men no longer need bother expecting a fair crack of the whip.

Firstly, what right does the state have to permit bosses to make decisions about having someone work for them on the grounds of their (the boss’s) perception of what is the correct ‘balance’ of the workforce?

I find this question bizarre. The current reality is that a boss who WANTS to do something about gender/race imblance at his/her company CANNOT without risking a tribunal. The state doesn’t permit it.

Now, I do not favour positive discrimination that means people not qualified to do a job get it anyway because of the colour of their skin or the arrangement of their genitalia, but this proposal doesn’t allow for this. It says to a boss who has a handful of equally suitable candidates, you can, without fear of the law, promote cultural/ethnic/gender diversity within the workplace. If you don’t want to avail yourself of these additional safeguards, you don’t have to.

Secondly, I persist and sign on this one: the legislation represents the politics of the likes of Harman who promote the interests of well-educated professional women, and similarly well-educated professional ‘ethnic’ minorities. Were I in one of these categories I would support it. I am serious, personal advancement is a reasonable goal and removing barriers in these circumstances is right. Though there are plenty of careerists, well-known to many of us, who have already taken advantage of this (known in left circles as ASAs – ‘as a women, etc’). But apply this kind of conception to the workforce as a whole and you have a recipe for disaster. Apart from potential court cases (already mentioned by others) there is the potential for massive conflict inside firms and separation of people on ‘ethnic’ grounds above all.

Christ on a bike, coherent criticism at last. My first comment is that if it weren’t broken, I too wouldn’t be supporting any efforts to fix it. But it is broken. Gender and race discrimination – sometimes unconscious – is a reality in Britain’s 21st century workplace. It’s better in some places than others, but the discrimination is still there. And those court cases you and others are fearful of…..the’re happening today. This legislation provides legal cover for those employers who want to do their little bit to help rollback years of institutionalised discrimination. It’s not a silver bullet and no-one is pretending it is (in fact this proposal is one small element of a much more wide-ranging bill that, as I keep saying, has been broadly welcomed by ALL parties).

And I jsut don’t see any rational argument for why this will benefit only upwardly-mobile women/minorities. Who benefits is very much in the hands of employers, not the state.

There are so many ‘ethnic’ groups in the UK who is to say that, for example, the Scots may be over/under represented.

All other things being equal, the employer. Are you saying that employers don’t make these decisions anyway? Today?

I didn’t understand your third objection. I really didn’t, other than that you appear to believe that addressing poverty and deprivation and implementing this proposal are mutually exclusive.

“The proposed legislation will permit eployers who, when faced with the same situation, are allowed to look at the balance of their work-force and make a conscious decision to employ candidate X because s/he will contribute to the diverse working environment the employer wants to promote…”

Agree with Andrew Coates.

Who the hell cares whether a business has ‘a diverse working environment’ with the right numbers of representative males/females/blacks/browns/yellows/others…?

Seriously, if this is the worst thing in the world to Harman and her fellow social engineers, then worrying about who benefits most or least from such a policy is like worrying about the amount of ice on the Titanic’s foredeck. The ships already foundering…

And the jury’s out on that one.

Not if you’re earning the minimum wage, it isn’t.

The law is colour-blind.

Not under these new proposals it isn’t.

To pass a law to govern the vanishingly few cases (unimaginable to me) where candidates were of exactly equal strength, seems absurd.

As I said, this is one small proposal in a wide-ranging bill. The reason why this is in the press and we are discussing it here is not because Harman has made it her life’s work to get this legislation passed, it’s because people who should know better and those who never could are recklessly perpetuating an anti-white bias myth that plays into the hands of those like the BNP.

Opponents of this proposal seem to flit between “why bother” and “what an irrelvance” on the one hand, and “outrageous anti-white bias” on the other.

Who the hell cares whether a business has ‘a diverse working environment’ with the right numbers of representative males/females/blacks/browns/yellows/others…?

It logically flows from this comment that we ought not to care if every business in the land only employed white males and no-one else. And the fact it is, you’re not compelled to care anyway and the law can’t compel you to care.

“It logically flows from this comment that we ought not to care if every business in the land only employed white males and no-one else.”

How in hell is it somehow benefitting society if businesses look at their workers not in terms of people, but as ticks in a box..?

‘Ooh, got an Asian, and a Sikh, two Muslims, a Wiccan and an elderly wheelchair user… Damn, need a lesbian for the full set!’

Please, tell me – how the hell does that help anyone? Would you want to work in an office or factory where you might have the suspicion you were hired not because you were the best person for the job, but so the company could have a ‘diverse working environment’…?

It’s utter madness….

Who the hell cares whether a business has ‘a diverse working environment’ with the right numbers of representative males/females/blacks/browns/yellows/others…?

Presumably the best candidates who may want to apply to the compamy in future (whether they be males/females/blacks/browns/yellows/others.)

<i.Under this legislation, these things will carry on. Only now, these social engineers will just pretend everyone is equal and then say the discrimination they are up to is legal.

And if a victim of this discrimination takes them to a tribunal and the employer tries to invoked this new proposal as justification for their decision about who to employ, they will find it difficult if the cosntitution of their work-force does not support the claim. For example, if the work-force is already disproportionately black/brown, the employer will find it difficult defending the decision not to employ the whire person using this specific law. Of course, what will happen is that the employer will lie, just as they do currently in the same situation. Sometimes they’ll get away with it, other times they won’t. As I’ve already tried to point out, this law is not designed to catch/trap bad employers who use discriminatory selection procedures; it’s designed to protect those who don’t and in fact want to do something positive about any gender/race imbalance they feel exists in their organisations.

But generally, I sympathise with your broader point here. The current situation is intolerable.

I just wonder if this is Harman’s hurrah. She must know the ship is going down with herself on it. Is she just putting this forward in a hurry while she can, trying to create a heroic legacy for herself?

She has had held a number of public offices but not really distinguished herself. The last time she did something really useful which she should be proud of was arguably in the Cathy Massiter case back in 1984.

Since then she has been a bit of a mixed bag where her record is concerned, unable to decide if she is a conformist or not. She seems to have been a disappointment to many people, possibly including herself: she voted for introducing a smoking ban, for introducing ID cards, for introducing foundation hospitals, for introducing student top-up fees, for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws, for the Iraq war, against investigating the Iraq war, for replacing Trident and for the hunting ban. It may be that looking back on the balance of her career she is wishing she’d done something different with her time, hence this rather hurried introduction of this controversial legislation which doesn’t really have a lot of a groundswell of public support behind it.

There is certainly something of an air of them all knowing they are at the end of an era about the government at the moment.

“Presumably the best candidates who may want to apply to the compamy in future (whether they be males/females/blacks/browns/yellows/others.)”

But if the criteria is a ‘diverse working environment’, you aren’t going to GET the ‘best candidate’. You are going to get the one that fills the empty slot you have on your checklist.

first paragraph above should be italicised

You are going to get the one that fills the empty slot you have on your checklist

Nope, that would be illegal.

‘Ooh, got an Asian, and a Sikh, two Muslims, a Wiccan and an elderly wheelchair user… Damn, need a lesbian for the full set!’

Please, tell me – how the hell does that help anyone?

What, your ludicrous parodying of the legislation? I agree that does not help anyone, at least not anyone interested in a sensible discussion of the real issues.

An emploer who did what you suggest would indeed be a fool. But this legislation does nothing to influence such foolishness either way.

Some companies actaully do give a shit about how they are perceived in the local community.

“But this legislation does nothing to influence such foolishness either way.”

Yes, it’s a ludicrous situation – but how exactly are you to take the suggestion of ‘diverse working environment’ if not as a ludicrous one…?

Are you seriously suggesting people should be happy knowing that they were viewed by their employer not for the benefit of themselves and the skills and knowledge they bring, as a person, but simply for what cachet of ‘diversity’ they gave the company?

” ‘Ooh, got an Asian, and a Sikh, two Muslims, a Wiccan and an elderly wheelchair user… Damn, need a lesbian for the full set!’

‘Please, tell me – how the hell does that help anyone?

What, your ludicrous parodying of the legislation? I agree that does not help anyone, at least not anyone interested in a sensible discussion of the real issues.

An employer who did what you suggest would indeed be a fool.’”

But they do exist. They are to be found in local authorities and large charities throughout London and many other parts of the UK.

It wasn’t the splitting of train and track operations per se which caused the problems with rail privatisation, it was the fact that they were sold off to separate owners, resulting in conflicting interests, lack of communication and co-ordination, buck passing whenever there were problems etc. Of course the mind numbing incompetence of Railtrack and the train operators didn’t help either.

Are you seriously suggesting people should be happy knowing that they were viewed by their employer not for the benefit of themselves and the skills and knowledge they bring, as a person, but simply for what cachet of ‘diversity’ they gave the company?

But it would still be illegal to employ them on the basis of their ethnicity if there were others more qualified for the job. People would still need the neccessary skills, knowlege and personal qualities to get the job.

I have to say I have mixed feeling about that part of the legislation because it is a bit of a minefield. I can see what the government is trying to do though and to portray it as being part of some crusade against white males is just nuts.

“But it would still be illegal to employ them on the basis of their ethnicity if there were others more qualified for the job. People would still need the neccessary skills, knowlege and personal qualities to get the job.”

Yes, indeed. But if the others weren’t more qualified, but equally qualified, then they would indeed be hired on the basis of their race of gender. How on earth that would help ’social cohesion’ is beyond me.

“…to portray it as being part of some crusade against white males is just nuts.”

Then it shouldn’t have ever been drawn up in the first place; it should have been obvious even to Labour’s deaf and blind PR department how it’d play. Positive descrimination is still discrimination. There are better ways of assisting minority candidates to compete on an equal playing field.

It’s tokenism of the worst kind, and I can’t think that even the people it aims to help will be happy to be viewed as tokens.

But if the criteria is a ‘diverse working environment’, you aren’t going to GET the ‘best candidate’. You are going to get the one that fills the empty slot you have on your checklist.

No you are going to get whoever applies. But if (to give my example again) you have an all-female management team and you wish to send a message of welcome to males who may be considering taking the first step into your company then you will be able to take on a male manager if his skills are the same as a female one.

“But if (to give my example again) you have an all-female management team and you wish to send a message of welcome to males who may be considering taking the first step into your company then you will be able to take on a male manager if his skills are the same as a female one.”

Terrific! ‘Listen up, ladies, I’d like to introduce our token penis…’

I can’t imagine how that’d make the male manager feel, or the female managers who would be well aware why he was hired….

Joking aside, this kind of thing is often perceived as a problem by African Americans in the US, who are percieved as having got their positions due to ‘positive’ discrimination.

Do we really want to see this here?

I can’t imagine how that’d make the male manager feel, or the female managers who would be well aware why he was hired….

I don’t feel so bad about it at all actually. I imagine many women have been the token twat :-)

“I don’t feel so bad about it at all actually. I imagine many women have been the token twat :-)”

Lol!

It’s not really the positive, ‘valuing people for themselves’ approach we should be striving for, though, is it…?

I think that this is hardly positive discrimination however I would make the point that while I was forcing my way into the company of high-powered Ladies in the educational setting to which I am referring that there is not one black employee of either sex in the “front-line” of the organisation and that there was not one black male on either my teacher-training course in the late nineties or on the degree course that I entered as a mature student.

I just feel that the problem is going to be that people who are unsuccessful in getting a job are going to be taking employers to Industrial Tribunals and tying everything up in knots. Harman said it would apply to the public sector first, and this is just BULLYING. This filthy government continues to heap more and more regulations onto the public sector because it knows it can. As I said earlier, the second top cop in the Met Police is now suing the Met for racial discrimination, what a joke. Everyone with any sort of undefined grievance can now claim all sorts of things. How do you show that it is RACIAL or SEXUAL discrimination and not just that fact that you are not suited to a job? Remember as well, there is a lot more competition for unskilled and semi-skilled jobs than there is for professional or skilled jobs. Life is tough at the bottom. Legislation like this will only raise peoples’ expectations or stoke their grievances, I am afraid.

Brownie, you are taking some beating here. On the other hand it is interesting to see someone seeking to defend the Govt come what may.

The fact is for an awful lot of people on the left, the Labour party just doesn’t seem worth saving. Saving for what? Just to stop a Tory govt? Given the authoritarian nature of the govt coupled with an astonishingly poor quality of specimen masquerading as a Cabinet Minister (did you see Mrs Balls on ‘Question Time’ ?), a Tory govt just doesn’t seem to be the nasty evil bugbear it might have once seemed. (Not that I’m saying a Tory govt’d be any good ; just it doesn’t seem such a big deal as it once was).

And on this particular Harman proposal, what ever happened to Common Sense and allowing people to operate with a certain degree of unwritten flexibility. This proposal gives employment legislation a bad name and is just so not needed.

And oh Morgoth, when I first came across you I thought you unbelievably rude, uncouth and unnecessary – actually I quite enjoy your comments now.

Those saying this is a gender neutral proposal will have to overcome the suspicions aroused when Harman’s track record is looked into on gender issues where respect for the social position of men is concerned. In 1990 Harman co-authored a report entitled “The Family Way”. It criticised the family unit- in particular it questioned whether men were an asset to families at all and whether “the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion”.

It comes across, in the further light of this legislation which would permit discrimination against them, that she may be working to a long-term agenda to actively undermine men.

Although I do have to say that it does seem an odd time to introduce such legislation (with accompanying fanfare anyway) and I think the person who said that this was probably Harman’s little pet project is probably right.

Much as I usually (that is usually) agree with Brownie it does look like a fair few of these Labour politicians are off with the fairies.

Then it shouldn’t have ever been drawn up in the first place; it should have been obvious even to Labour’s deaf and blind PR department how it’d play.

The government is often criticised, not unfairly fairly in my view, for making policy in order to satisfy the Daily Mail, so I don’t think it is a bad thing that they are preparred to bring in legislation which is bound to get attacked by the right. Ultimately it should be about doing what’s right, not what makes good PR.

As I said, I do have reservations myself as this is a difficult area. Some of the points made against them are fair but I do think they are trying to do the right thing, and that some of the criticisms are over the top.

The fact is for an awful lot of people on the left, the Labour party just doesn’t seem worth saving.

I agree, I made a similar point earlier. I just don’t see this particular legislation as something to hammer them on. Leaving aside the one aspect which is being discussed above there is some perfectly reasonable stuff in there.

“I just don’t see this particular legislation as something to hammer them on. Leaving aside the one aspect which is being discussed above there is some perfectly reasonable stuff in there.”

In the scheme of things there is so much else to hammer them on, but what else are they saying that is new that they want to do?

Andrew Coates 4.23pm excellent points

In the scheme of things there is so much else to hammer them on, but what else are they saying that is new that they want to do?

The new legislation regarding the planning laws is much worse than this.

“…I would make the point that … there is not one black employee of either sex in the “front-line” of the organisation and that there was not one black male on either my teacher-training course in the late nineties or on the degree course that I entered as a mature student.”

There might be other reasons for that than ‘they aren’t employing blacks!’. Should they employ a black male, however equally qualified, simply because of his sex and colour…?

“Legislation like this will only raise peoples’ expectations or stoke their grievances, I am afraid.”

Yes. It will. You only have to look at the high profile appointments like Ali Dizai, for example.

“Ultimately it should be about doing what’s right, not what makes good PR.”

The problem is, is this ‘right’…? Or is it reducing people to mere tokens?

So, the future of Labour lies with their excellent new planning laws. Forgetting all our past disappointments and being positive, who, in the light of whatever the economy is expect to do, thinks that new planning laws will a sufficient platform for them to base their next election win on?

Thought not. Anyone up for a spread bet on how many MPs fewer than a hundred they get?

“Since then she has been a bit of a mixed bag where her record is concerned, unable to decide if she is a conformist or not. She seems to have been a disappointment to many people, possibly including herself: she voted for introducing a smoking ban, for introducing ID cards, for introducing foundation hospitals, for introducing student top-up fees, for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws, for the Iraq war, against investigating the Iraq war, for replacing Trident and for the hunting ban. “

Well I can’t see anything to critise in that lot !

The National Front used an effective sticker/slogan in the 1970’s and 80’s “If only I was black !” – I have used variations on that theme attacking the linguistic facists of the Nationalists here in South Wales. It was effective. I have seen and studied some very nasty TV adverts issued by the Republicans in the States on the subject of positive discrimination.

I can just see the Tories/UKIP/BNP issueing similar attacks

Brownie – I will fight for the Party as much as any loyalist but this idioticy from Harmsperson is damaging, no matter what the wooley heads may think.

Or would you prefer this :

Flyposted “You worked hard for this job, you sailed through the interview, you were best qualified – Unfortunately you are white.”

GW

There might be other reasons for that than ‘they aren’t employing blacks!’. Should they employ a black male, however equally qualified, simply because of his sex and colour…?

Well that was the point I was trying to make about this not being “positive discrimination” (as in my own experience there is not one black male in the country who is anywhere near getting the job. ) Of course there probably are one or two
outside my experience who could do it – but the “positive discrimination” in such a case would be getting young black males into university to study in the general area – then in about eight years time they may find these latest laws of some use (but don’t hold your breath.)

Andrew Coates points are excellent.

I don’t know whether this is on or off topic

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/27/barackobama.ralphnader

Barack Obama is “half African American”

work that one out.

What happens if a person is appointed on the grounds of ethnicity and an unsuccessful candidate then claims that the successful one wasn’t really ethnic enough? And the issue then has to be decided by a court or tribunal? Do we really want to have tribunal hearings on whether Mr X or Ms Y is or is not to be regarded as “black”? I’ve heard they used to have something like that in apartheid South Africa.

One question I’d like to ask the lawyers on here.
The differential in economic performance between various different groups within groups is vast.
Compare Ugandan Asians with Pakistani Asians.
Ugandan Asians outperform both white british and Asian Pakistanis.

Would employing an extra Ugandan Asian count as equalising an imbalance due to poor employment rates amongst Pakistani Asians?

And oh Morgoth, when I first came across you I thought you unbelievably rude, uncouth and unnecessary – actually I quite enjoy your comments now.

Ye gods.

Hope I’m still rude enough for you?

Are you seriously suggesting people should be happy knowing that they were viewed by their employer not for the benefit of themselves and the skills and knowledge they bring, as a person, but simply for what cachet of ‘diversity’ they gave the company?

Nope, and neither is this legislation. Unless you are suitably qualified, capable of fulfilling the role and able to bring value to the prospective employer’s organisation, you won’t ever get to a stage where your gender/race becomes selection criteria.

Insofar as some employers practice discriminatory selection, this happens today with the current legislation, and it will no doubt happen after this bill passes. This legislation is not aimed at tackling the unscrupulous employers who practice race/gender bias, rather it is there to assist those who don’t.

At 1:32pm, Brownie wrote: “At the GE, Labour will reappear in thrid and….so fecking what? Like I said, what happens in Henley now or then is simply irrelevant.”

Well the election result is relevant, not as a predictor of future behaviour, but as a snapshot of current opinion. It was a by-election, so actual voting behaviour won’t be reflected in a general election, but an awful lot of people participated in a glorified opinion poll (I take the democratic vote seriously, but a by-election that can’t change the state of the government is effectively an opinion poll). And it is just a south of England poll. Look at the last couple of general election results, and compare the share of the vote for the three main parties.

The Tories were defending and the retirement (rather than death) of an MP during a parliamentary session normally backfires on the defending party. Voters resent turning out for an “unnecessary” election. Tory voters are more embarassed about the their leanings than others (ask any canvasser, or look at the many opinion polls that underestimate Tory support). Tory polling day operations are often plain useless because they have no idea who is willing to vote for them; but they voted on Thursday. The strength of the Tory vote in combination with the above two factors suggests high voter motivation (in a constituency with a lot of mutual support), with Tory/Lib Dem switchers opting for the Tory. Obviously there would have been some Tory/Lab switchers too.

The Lib Dem vote failed to arrive. They seem to have grabbed a lot of the former Labour vote, but that was mainly offset by the Tory switchers.

As for Labour, look at the numbers:
Richard McKenzie (Lab): 1,066 (3.07%, -11.68%)
Unless there was latent support for the BNP in Henley waiting to be tapped, 20% of former Labour voters went for the BNP candidate.

I’ll try that again. In a seat where the Lib Dems were trying to beat the Tories in a two horse race (about which every voter would have been aware), 20% of former Labour voters picked the BNP even if it meant that a Tory would win.

But they do exist. They are to be found in local authorities and large charities throughout London and many other parts of the UK.

Yes. Today. With the legislation as it currently exists. And they would be there after this bill passes. What’s your point? If mine were that this bill will eradicate discriminatory employment practice in one fell swoop, then you would have one. But it’s not so you don’t.

And on this particular Harman proposal, what ever happened to Common Sense and allowing people to operate with a certain degree of unwritten flexibility.

Crikey, let me try this again. The current situation compromises an employer’s flexibility. She has equal candidates, wants to do something to address a stark gender imbalance in the firm she inherited from her father last year, but risks being taken to a tribunal if she wants to address that. Remember, we’re not talking about discriminating against males who are better qualified; we’re talking about giving the employer legal protection to exercise her right to use additional criteria to select from equal candidates.

You can criticise the proposal as unnecessary and/or misguided if you like, but this is one piece of legislation that is designed to increase flexibility, not restrict it.

Flyposted “You worked hard for this job, you sailed through the interview, you were best qualified – Unfortunately you are white.”

But this would still be illegal.

Flyposted “You worked hard for this job, you sailed through the interview, you were best qualified – Unfortunately you are white.”

That would be illegal. The proposal would not legalise such practices. If this legislation is so bad, why do people have to keep making stuff up?

Brownie,
Under this legislation, would a company having say, 5% Asian employment,All of whom are Ugandan Asian in an area (I presume the legislation would have to be localised) where the local population were 10% Asian (5% Ugandan Asian 5% Pakistani Asian) be affected under this legislation,if deciding between a white applicant and a Ugandan Asian of equal merit,it decided on the Ugandan Asian candidate because its Asian representation is half what it should be.

Sorry.
That was unintelligible.
Are Asian Sub groups with unemployemnt rates of 20% to be treated the same as sub groups with unemployment rates of 2%

What happens if a person is appointed on the grounds of ethnicity and an unsuccessful candidate then claims that the successful one wasn’t really ethnic enough?

There is no test of ethnicity. An employer doesn’t have to justify his final choice so long as he didn’t discriminate against better qualified candidates. If an employer defends, say, the selection of a black male claiming protection under this new proposal, and a failed white female candidate can demonstrate at tribunal that 80% of the employer’s workforce is already black male, I think the employer will have a problem.

Nothing changes as regards a failed candidate’s rights to challenge a decision. What this legislation does is protect an employer form charges that s/he used gender/race criteria to separate equally qualified candidates, where that criteria is being genuinely used to address existing imbalances. It doesn’t provide protection to employers who want to employ only candidates of a particular race or gender.

If all the black males employed were Jamaican,in an area with a large Somali population would the employment of a another Jamaican as opposed to an equally qualified Somali protect the company from legal action?

tim,

The employer can do what s/he likes so long as the decison can be justified at tribunal, assuming it is challenged. It’s exactly the same principle as with existing employment decisions taken every day. The government isn’t creating quotas for employers or setting targets.

If an employer tries to ‘work the system’ to employ favoured races/genders, she he will get found out eventually. You can’t claim to have employed the white male over the equally qualified black female to equalise your workforce imbalance if the vast majority of your workforce is already white male.

The system is self-correcting.

If all the black males employed were Jamaican,in an area with a large Somali population would the employment of a another Jamaican as opposed to an equally qualified Somali protect the company from legal action?

It depends what the defence of the employer was. If he tried to use the “I’m adressing the wokplace imbalance” line, I presume he would fail. But then, he wouldn’t, would he? He’d pretend the Jamaican was better qualified if he really did harbour anti-Somali prejudice. And the tribunal would have to try to discover this. The employer may get away with it. They do today, and as I’ve mentioned several times already, this legislation is not deisgned to trap unscrupulous employers who practice race/gender bias.

turquoisetandem
27 June 2008, 6:33 pm
“Brownie, you are taking some beating here.”

No he’s not. He’s wiping the floor with them

There are times when I wonder what keeps some peoples ears apart.

“Flyposted “You worked hard for this job, you sailed through the interview, you were best qualified – Unfortunately you are white.”

“That would be illegal. The proposal would not legalise such practices. If this legislation is so bad, why do people have to keep making stuff up?”

Yes we all know flyposting is illegal – Does that stop it ?

Would you Brownie be happy defending a Labour seat in East London of parts of the Midlands, or inner Essex with the Nutzies going door to door on the theme Labour is ‘positively’ discriminating against you white working class maes.

And flyposting stickers on the same theme ?

No, not thought through, impossible to work, and politically damaging !

GW

“It depends what the defence of the employer was. If he tried to use the “I’m adressing the wokplace imbalance” line, I presume he would fail.”

Will the legislation be framed in terms that would protect the Somali?
Or are Somalis and Jamaicans both treated as the same under the legislation?

Okay GW, I apologise, I take the point now. However, in this age of politicians exhibiting newly-found principles, are you seriously suggesting the government should avoid legislation like this for the sake of political expediency?

;-)

KevinG: “No he’s not. He’s wiping the floor with them”

New Labour policy in a nutshell – declare victory in the face of the evidence…

“This legislation is not aimed at tackling the unscrupulous employers who practice race/gender bias, rather it is there to assist those who don’t.”

It’s been pointed out to you that a) it doesn’t do that, and b) even if it did, this is not how it’s going to play. It will be seen as ‘tokenising’ people, because that it what it reduces people to – tokens, valued for their sex/race/gender.

Whatever the result, Labour is dead. Gordon Brown got himself in this mess. he doesn’t need or deserve any sympathy from his party faithful. The party will face a huge political death, and when they become insolvent, I, and the people of Britain, will dance on their graves.

New Labour policy in a nutshell – declare victory in the face of the evidence…

Um, if you read up-thread, you’ll find others did that first.

It’s been pointed out to you that a) it doesn’t do that,

I missed that bit. Remind me.

b) even if it did, this is not how it’s going to play.

To the extent that it might not play like that, I think you’ll have those misrepresenting the legislation as “anti-white bias” to thank for that.

It will be seen as ‘tokenising’ people, because that it what it reduces people to – tokens, valued for their sex/race/gender.

Yeah, so you keep saying, but seeing as how this criteria can only come into play if I am the equal of all candidates to begin with, I don’t see how this can apply. Why would I feel I was a “token” anything if selected on this basis? There were, by definition, no superior candidates. I’m as worthy as any of the others.

I’m afraid your conclusion is illogical.

This gem of a comment on CIF (of all places) sums up both Brownie and Nu-Labour at the moment….

A post Henley By-Election message from New Labour:-

Still I’m sure that Bleary Hazel will tell us what a victory it was. How’s the new laptop Haze??

I think the following is appropriate, justified and equal to your commentary of the Respect disaster last year:

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

^ That was pretty much all that was posted here for a good six months during the whole thing, I’m sure you can handle what you dished out till the election. :) GE here we come!

“seeing as how this criteria can only come into play if I am the equal of all candidates to begin with, I don’t see how this can apply. Why would I feel I was a “token” anything if selected on this basis? There were, by definition, no superior candidates. I’m as worthy as any of the others.”

Except, you’re not ‘as worthy as any of the others’ – you’re more worthy (to the company) simply for being a man, or a white person, or a wheelchair user – whatever is needed to boost their ‘diversity’. You are, in effect, being picked for something you can’t change, not for your skills.

This policy, where it’s used (and assuming it ever sees the light of day), will breed nothing but resentment.

“I’m afraid your conclusion is illogical.”

Your refusal to see the political disaster that this policy represents, and to go on insisting that it is correct and good and right, is the only illogical thing here.

But then, that attituide seems pretty well-spread among the (currently) governing party, so enjoy it while it lasts. I’ll bookmark this thread to read after the next election.

Oh dear.

Henley was something of a disaster, if you look at relevant vote shares from 1997 to Thursday. (Or even, actually, forever.) But it was a by-election, and third parties get squeezed. That’s life. Get excited if you want to. I sort of am. It was pretty fucking shit, after all.

“This is the inevitable unwind of New Labour. There is only so much triangulation you can do before everyone starts getting pissed off”

This is no doubt very satisfying for you to write, Benji, but I think there will be few people suggesting that Labour is utterly fucked because it is being *too* Blairite. You are welcome to live in your own personal world, of course.

Whenever the party does badly, you get creatures crawling out of the woodwork claiming that if only we followed their individual path to salvation, all would be well. This thread is a mild example of this.

It is a great shame the Tory Party does not have such wacko shits as foot-soldiers, supporters and assorted hangers-on. Life would be a lot easier if the Right was so quick to shit on its own kind for betrayal of the Pure Thought Tendency.

Such people are useless self-indulgent cunts who ought to burn in the flames of hell. (Was that too mild?)

What people have to understand (I seem to keep writing this sort of thing a lot these days) is that what you call “triangulation”, other people call sensible pragmatic politics which will result in the continuation of the party into the latter part of this century, thus ensuring its historic mission in support of the working class. But, you know, that’s just me. That cunt who lives in Hong Kong is totally more with it than me, and I should probably fuck off and smother myself now.

Now, I know there’s lots of rude words here. But I don’t really care a great deal.

Because, whilst this thread is a mild example of the “I am so left wing, follow me and all will be well, children” tendency, it is much more of an example of the “I am a right wing bloggertarian cunt with no social skills or ability to relate to real human beings or actual social problems, and I will give you the benefit of my knowledge of how Labour is so fucked, and my resulting glee, and then you can lick my frigid hands and thank me for my amazing capacious knowledge and metaphorically felate me by using such phrases as nuLab and zanuLab”.

And, you know, in the *nicest* possible way, I think I might just politely decline that offer. But, again, that’s just me.

We’re not doing very well at all. In fact, we’re doing very badly. It is difficult to know how to turn things around. In fact, I don’t things can be turned around, enough.

But things can be turned around somewhat. Whether with a new leader or without.

There is so much to be proud of that we’ve achieved in the last decade. We’ve bloody well transformed this nation, and we should damn well be proud of that.

And the fact that we are going to lose the next election, and the fact that the internet is full of cunts (and that they seem to pick particular moments to infest a progressive blog like this) is neither here nor there. Such people will be swept aside by the tide of history. They will be (and are being) burried by the avalanche of social progress which the Labour Party has merely the privilege to represent the tip of.

If you are (and I fucking well am) made angry by the idiotic crap piled on on this thread, then the best thing you can do is join the party if you haven’t already. And go out and knock on people’s doors in the run up to the next election, whether you have joined already or not.

Think of it (if you will) as one in the eye for twats like Alcuin, Morgoth and the like.

Missionary zeal? Yeah, sure.

Pro-Labour loyalist clap-trap? Undoubtedly.

Interested in what’s actually going to happen to the country, rather than simply some spazzy self-indulgent internet bollocks? Well, I would have thought so.