UK Politics VI - Will Britain Steir to Karmer Waters?

[Senethro]

Nope, that's you reading things into it. My point was just that if you make changes to prioritise certain canditates at the entry level, and that those candidates then rise up through the organisation over time, and then spend a long time at the top before they move on and create openings for new people to move up behind them, then it will inevitably take time for the changes you make at the bottom to be reflected at the top. I mean, how could it be otherwise?

There might be very many reasons to think otherwise.

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There might be very many reasons to think otherwise.

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

How does that map answer anything about how long a specific policy applied at the bottom end of a chain will or should take to have an effect at the top end?

 

[Senethro]

I'm sure you can divine my meaning through signs and portents, the way we have to when you give a What answer to a How question.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Okay m8. A reminder that the question (or rather speculation) was specifically whether or not the Labour Party would ever have a female or non-white leader. My response was that I think they inevitably will due to policies administered at the bottom end of their "food chain", but that the results of that will necessarily take a finite amount of time to migrate up said chain. I mean I really don't know what else you feel you need to divine to make sense of any of that, or what clarity it would add if I were to append an editorial about my personal feelings to the end of that.

 

[Senethro]

Okay m8. A reminder that the question (or rather speculation) was specifically whether or not the Labour Party would ever have a female or non-white leader. My response was that I think they inevitably will due to policies administered at the bottom end of their "food chain", but that the results of that will necessarily take a finite amount of time to migrate up said chain. I mean I really don't know what else you feel you need to divine to make sense of any of that, or what clarity it would add if I were to append an editorial about my personal feelings to the end of that.

Except it doesn't necessarily work like that in many institutions, so why would it work here? And here I could pick any example of gender ratio in hierarchies/institutions over time. Politics, business, academic publishing, whatever.

There is nothing inevitable about it if it doesn't overcome opposing forces.

 

[Gorbles]

Okay m8. A reminder that the question (or rather speculation) was specifically whether or not the Labour Party would ever have a female or non-white leader. My response was that I think they inevitably will due to policies administered at the bottom end of their "food chain", but that the results of that will necessarily take a finite amount of time to migrate up said chain. I mean I really don't know what else you feel you need to divine to make sense of any of that, or what clarity it would add if I were to append an editorial about my personal feelings to the end of that.

I don't suppose you have a source that concretely evidences the claim "Labour are actively discriminating, by policy, against white men at the bottom of their proverbial food chain".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Except it doesn't necessarily work like that in many institutions, so why would it work here? And here I could pick any example of gender ratio in hierarchies/institutions over time. Politics, business, academic publishing, whatever.

There is nothing inevitable about it if it doesn't overcome opposing forces.

Okay. Well I did say "I think" and I still think that. The link provided earlier shows the labour cabinet is 50% female and there have already been two different female acting leaders. So yes, I will be amazed if there isn't a female leader.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I refer you to Wikipedia

All-women shortlist - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The policy the Labour party introduced in1992 of at least one women candidate on each short list implicitly
discriminated against men in that at least one women was guaranteed for each short list, but a man was not.
That policy may not have had much effect in practice as there was usually at least one man on the short list.

The All women shortlist policy introduced for many constituencies in 1993 applied until March 2022.
This was more effective and resulted in legal action from excluded men according to the article.

This meant that there were nearly 30 years during which women were advanced at the bottom level.
So it is in my opinion not unreasonable to expect that to result in a women labour leader sooner or later.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The policy the Labour party introduced in1992 of at least one women candidate on each short list implicitly
discriminated against men in that at least one women was guaranteed for each short list, but a man was not.

I'd definitely argue with the word "implicit" there.

 

[EnglishEdward]

There is I believe a question of granularity here; the policy's impact overall was to rectify historic imbalances almost certainly
arising out of cultural discrimination, but when viewed in individual instances, yes its application could be discriminatory.

 

[Gorbles]

That policy may not have had much effect in practice as there was usually at least one man on the short list.

Thanks for the link, the pointing out of its cessation, and the note that it may not have had much effect on practise.

I would agree that the effect in practise seems hard to quantify, if it can be quantified at all.

I'd definitely argue with the word "implicit" there.

And yet, you don't. You just say you would.

 

[Arakhor]

I know that this is wild to consider, but policies that requires at least one <minority> are typically only introduced if members of that minority are routinely represented. If all your shortlists require one woman on them just to even have the appearance of diversity, clearly there's no need to have a policy requiring that men appear too.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I know that this is wild to consider, but policies that requires at least one <minority> are typically only introduced if members of that minority are routinely represented.

Underrepresented presumably?

 

[Samson]

I know that this is wild to consider, but policies that requires at least one <minority> are typically only introduced if members of that minority are routinely represented. If all your shortlists require one woman on them just to even have the appearance of diversity, clearly there's no need to have a policy requiring that men appear too.

Since it is you, I shall be pedantic and point out that women are 51% of the UK population, so are not a minority. It makes no difference to the argument, but pedantry, you know.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Technically still underrepresented in the cabinet then, at only 50%.

 

[Arakhor]

I meant under represented, yes. I would point out that it was only in 1975 that women were granted the right to open their own bank accounts independently in the UK, or (even more shockingly) granted the right to spend money in pubs in 1982. That second date is within my own lifetime.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The right to spend one's money has been lost to many people (including women) in many places including pubs and pizza chains in the UK.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, that was a masterclass in spectacularly avoiding the point.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well he just took what you said and made a tangential point about something else. Which is essentially what you did with your previous point too.

 

[Gorbles]

Well he just took what you said and made a tangential point about something else. Which is essentially what you did with your previous point too.

Demonstrate how it was. Talking about the realities of being a minority and the ways a minority is discriminated against feels very on-point to me.

Semantic waffling to avoid engaging with said realities is a very different thing.