Eleven Conservatives now bidding to be next UK prime minister

[baboon]

See what I mean?

[transam]

Just now, baboon said:

When all your candidates are scrapings from the bottom of the bin, it is best to attempt a bit of a diversion from the fact...

That's a socialist comment, and not factual regarding folk applying for the job of UK leader...

But take a look at the Labour front bench, now that is scraping the barrel.....????

[baboon]

See what I mean again?

[ozimoron]

Just now, transam said:

That's a socialist comment, and not factual regarding folk applying for the job of UK leader...

But take a look at the Labour front bench, now that is scraping the barrel.....????

"socialist comment"? Are you having a reds under the beds moment? How is criticising the opposition's candidates in any way "socialist"?

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

When all your candidates are scrapings from the bottom of the bin, it is best to attempt a bit of a diversion from the fact...

Actually the Tory candidates are high calibre, a diverse range of people (different races, both genders) with a diverse range of skills.

 

Maybe one day Labour will get elected again, and we can see a battle for who will be PM from their ranks. Just imagine, Abbott, Lammy and Rayner in a race to the bottom ????. 

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Actually the Tory candidates are high calibre, a diverse range of people (different races, both genders) with a diverse range of skills.

 

Maybe one day Labour will get elected again, and we can see a battle for who will be PM from their ranks. Just imagine, Abbott, Lammy and Rayner in a race to the bottom ????. 

Just need one more for the Tory Bingo card...

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

More fluff which simply restates the argument for this racist policy without addressing the question.

 

Affirmative action is simply a play on words, a feeble attempt to put a positive spin on a policy that discriminates against people on racial grounds. Shameful stuff that should have been left in 1950's America.

Because the civil rights act made everything all good and well in the world and race discrimination in employment ended that day?

Edited July 15, 2022 by ozimoron

[transam]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

"socialist comment"? Are you having a reds under the beds moment? How is criticising the opposition's candidates in any way "socialist"?

Because any thread involving the Blues, the same lefty brigade turn up with the same ol' tripe....FACT, I am just pointing it out to balance things up....????

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

So if we can accept that privilige is not based on race, why discriminate against white people that apply for a job, simply because they are white? Sounds kind of racist to me, no?

 

I'm yet to hear a good argument that justifies it. Just posts like yours which are essentially a load of fluff that is a poor attempt to deflect from the question. 

 

I will ask again, why do you believe in discriminating against people on racial grounds?

Not for the first time, you are misrepresenting what I said.

 

I did not accept anything.

 

My precise statement was: 

 

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t know who you are arguing with, nobody here is saying privilege is based on race, that there are no poor white kids of that there are no wealthy Black/Asian people. 
 

Me thinks you are cooking up some faux outrage.

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Because any thread involving the Blues, the same lefty brigade turn up with the same ol' tripe....FACT, I am just pointing it out to balance things up....????

But it's not "socialist" is it? You're just misusing the word as a slur, right?

[transam]

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

Just need one more for the Tory Bingo card...

You go to the Derby & Joan Club......?   ????

Eyes down........????

[transam]

Just now, ozimoron said:

But it's not "socialist" is it? You're just misusing the word as a slur, right?

Are you saying socialists are a slur....?

Now I wouldn't go that far.....????

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Are you saying socialists are a slur....?

Now I wouldn't go that far.....????

no I'm saying that your use of word had nothing to do with the context and therefore only left the presumption that you are just flinging insults at those you disagree with.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

no I'm saying that your use of word had nothing to do with the context and therefore only left the presumption that you are just flinging insults at those you disagree with.

I disagree with socialists full stop, but if you think me calling a socialist, a socialist is an insult, that's up to you.... ????

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

I disagree with socialists full stop, but if you think me calling a socialist, a socialist is an insult, that's up to you.... ????

I’d be very surprised if you disagree with everything about socialism, just as I’d be very surprised to find socialists who disagree with everything about capitalism.

 

But of course I’m not taking into account zealotry.

[JonnyF]

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Because the civil rights act made everything all good and well in the world and race discrimination in employment ended that day?

So why are white people being excluded from certain jobs due to "Affirmative action" or "Positive discrimination"?

 

Sounds like racial discrimination, no? 

 

Positive discrimination? Maybe if you support racist policies, but not so positive if you are a white person being excluded due to your ethnicity.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’d be very surprised if you disagree with everything about socialism, just as I’d be very surprised to find socialists who disagree with everything about capitalism.

 

But of course I’m not taking into account zealotry.

I am talking about the Labour Party and those who support their failures.    ????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

So why are white people being excluded from certain jobs due to "Affirmative action" or "Positive discrimination"?

 

Sounds like racial discrimination, no? 

 

Positive discrimination? Maybe if you support racist policies, but not so positive if you are a white person being excluded due to your ethnicity.

Why is this related to the Tory Party leadership contest?

 

Last time I checked the candidates came from a range of ethnicities.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Blair is a candidate for the next Tory PM?!

 

Who knew? 

 

Oh how you must wish it could all be brushed under the carpet ????.

 

Back on topic, good to see Kemi is still in the race for next PM. The more I read about her the more I like her.

 

Femi doesn't seem too impressed though. A black PM would damage racial inequality?

 

Who knew?

 

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Why is this related to the Tory Party leadership contest?

 

Last time I checked the candidates came from a range of ethnicities.

Because Kemi is in favour of ending such racist policies. She also supports ending the teaching of Critical Race Theory as fact in schools.

 

Kemi is a candidate for hte Tory leadership in case you hadn't been following. Hence the discussion of her anti racist policies.

[Rampant Rabbit]

if  only they had a transgender  Asian/ mixed  race applicant then they really could  tick  all the boxes, if  you askl me, minorities in the govt on all sides are well and truly over represented

[RayC]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Nice try, but you are tieing yourself in knots trying to justify a racist, discriminatory policy.

Far from it being me tying myself in knots, you would need to be Houdini at the top of his game to get out of the tangle that you have got yourself into in trying to dismiss affirmative action as a legitimate policy initiative.

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Discrimination is never justified. The rest of your diatribe ignores the fact that some of the worst performing students, and poorest students in the UK are white boys.

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

So your solution is to further disenfranchise them in the job market by discriminating against them on the basis of their skin colour because you assume that they are more priviliged than a wealthy black or Asian student (who may have just left Eton)?

I'll be generous and assume that you are confusing me with another poster.

 

I have not offered a solution to the relative underperformance of some kids from poor, white families as I have made no comment on educational performance in this context.

 

Now you come to mention it, perhaps one solution to this particular problem would be to target policies towards this group? Unfortunately, I assume that you would be against this as it is affirmative action.

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Assuming privilige is based on race is an outdated and divisive concept. There are plenty of poor white kids and plenty of wealthy black/Asian kids. Supporting policies that further disadvantages poor white kids based on their ethnicity is not only racist, but immoral.

Privilege isn't - and never was - based purely on race but it cannot be dismissed as irrelevant as you suggest. Unemployment, over-crowded housing, police checks, etc are all disproportionately higher among black groups. What should we do? Accept this as the natural order of things or investigate why this is the case?

 

Affirmative action may (or may not) be one (part) of the solution, however, why dismiss it without consideration as you do? (Your words: Discrimination is never justified).

 

[JonnyF]

35 minutes ago, placeholder said:

These are MP's. You think that they oughtn't to be skeptical about such matters as going to War? You think gullibility is a desirable trait in an MP?

More desirable than being a lieing war criminal? 

 

I'd say the onus was on Blair not to lie, rather than on the Tories to correctly assess whether he was lieing or not. Lieing is not allowed in the House of Commons, nor is calling someone a liar. The Tories therefore can be forgiven for believing he was being truthful. After all, it takes a special kind of evil to lie about something in order to make war (and thousands of deaths) possible. 

 

Blaming the Tories for Blair's lieing and subsequent war crimes is frankly, ridiculous.

[JonnyF]

Just now, RayC said:

Far from it being me tying myself in knots, you would need to be Houdini at the top of his game to get out of the tangle that you have got yourself into in trying to dismiss affirmative action as a legitimate policy initiative.

 

 

I'll be generous and assume that you are confusing me with another poster.

 

I have not offered a solution to the relative underperformance of some kids from poor, white families as I have made no comment on educational performance in this context.

 

Now you come to mention it, perhaps one solution to this particular problem would be to target policies towards this group? Unfortunately, I assume that you would be against this as it is affirmative action.

 

Privilege isn't - and never was - based purely on race but it cannot be dismissed as irrelevant as you suggest. Unemployment, over-crowded housing, police checks, etc are all disproportionately higher among black groups. What should we do? Accept this as the natural order of things or investigate why this is the case?

 

Affirmative action may (or may not) be one (part) of the solution, however, why dismiss it without consideration as you do? (Your words: Discrimination is never justified).

 

 

Long winded fluff, again. Allow me to simplify my viewpoint for you.

 

1. We should help the most disadvantaged in society, irrespective of their race. It should be based on their needs, not their race.

 

2. We should not stop people from getting particular jobs based on their race. It should be based on their ability to do the job, not their race.

 

Any policy that discriminates for (or against) an individual based on their race is by definition a racist policy. You can choose your own label for people who support racist policies, I have mine.

[Rimmer]

Some off topic posts and replies removed, topic is not about Blair and WMD's

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

More desirable than being a lieing war criminal? 

 

I'd say the onus was on Blair not to lie, rather than on the Tories to correctly assess whether he was lieing or not. Lieing is not allowed in the House of Commons, nor is calling someone a liar. The Tories therefore can be forgiven for believing he was being truthful. After all, it takes a special kind of evil to lie about something in order to make war (and thousands of deaths) possible. 

 

Blaming the Tories for Blair's lieing and subsequent war crimes is frankly, ridiculous.

Really? You think MPs are basically rubber stampers? Just to go along with whatever the current PM claims? Is that how it works in the House of Commons? The opposition basically says yes to whatever the current PM proposes? No questions asked? What alternative UK do come from?

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really? You think MPs are basically rubber stampers? Just to go along with whatever the current PM claims? Is that how it works in the House of Commons? The opposition basically says yes to whatever the current PM proposes? No questions asked? What alternative UK do come from?

Have you heard the expression "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"?

 

Well this was the first time Blair fooled everyone about the war. The Tory MP's could be forgiven for expecting higher standards from the UK PM than telling them bare faced lies. The shame is all on Blair for this one. His legacy will be one of immense deceit leading to thousands of deaths and decades of instability in the Middle East. 

 

Johnson on the other hand, had a party. The only thing destroyed was a bottle of decent red ????. I know what I'd rather be remembered for.

 

But he had to go, and now we can get back on topic to his successor. I believe Kemi would be a great choice. Pro Brexit, anti Woke, anti Critical race theory. What a woman to lead the Conservatives. Marvellous.

[RayC]

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Long winded fluff, again.

which again you do not address directly.

 

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Allow me to simplify my viewpoint for you.

 

1. We should help the most disadvantaged in society, irrespective of their race. It should be based on their needs, not their race.

Agreed

 

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

2. We should not stop people from getting particular jobs based on their race. It should be based on their ability to do the job, not their race.

In general, I agree but there are exceptions.

 

For example, would you agree that a policy of positive discrimination was needed immediately after apartheid ended in SA? (How it was implemented and how it turned out is another conversation).

 

In the UK, there was - still is - a lack of black representation in boardrooms. If two candidates - one black, one white - are basically of the same standard, isn't there a case to select the black candidate to redress the imbalance. That's racist, by definition.

 

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Any policy that discriminates for (or against) an individual based on their race is by definition a racist policy.

Agreed. By definition it is.

 

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You can choose your own label for people who support racist policies, I have mine.

Your fixation with the race issue does not allow you to accept that there may be times when affirmative action is needed, whether it be based on economic position, location or race, etc.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

More desirable than being a lieing war criminal? 

 

I'd say the onus was on Blair not to lie, rather than on the Tories to correctly assess whether he was lieing or not. Lieing is not allowed in the House of Commons, nor is calling someone a liar. The Tories therefore can be forgiven for believing he was being truthful. After all, it takes a special kind of evil to lie about something in order to make war (and thousands of deaths) possible. 

 

Blaming the Tories for Blair's lieing and subsequent war crimes is frankly, ridiculous.

I think it fairer to hold each MP to account for their own voting record.

 

It avoids having to argue they are easily lead fools.

 

(Bringing you back to Topic)

 

This is especially significant given the fact that the subject leadership election has come about as the direct result of the lies of the PM who is being replaced.

 

Let’s judge the candidates on their record of supporting a blatant liar.

[3NUMBAS]

disenfrachised boris fans by the millions will be waiting the nobble the tory election, it doesnt matter who they pick for PM ...a ethnik PM can expect total wipeout especially from the red wall areas

but torys are not very streetwise to their impending doom after boris got 14 million  votes 

if nigel farage comes back it wil be even worse for em lava  torys