edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,376
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on May 5, 2024 13:20:35 GMT
In the past some ethnic minority Labour candidates did probably do worse due to old prejudices when you look at the figures. These days I believe the consensus is that this has largely disappeared And if it hadn't, you would advocate pandering to these prejudices? There is no point me explaining this to you as I know you are opposed to the logic that underlines intersectional politics |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on May 5, 2024 13:48:41 GMT
In the past some ethnic minority Labour candidates did probably do worse due to old prejudices when you look at the figures. These days I believe the consensus is that this has largely disappeared And if it hadn't, you would advocate pandering to these prejudices? Pretty sure that actually happened in the past, "advocate" or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 5, 2024 13:57:42 GMT
And if it hadn't, you would advocate pandering to these prejudices? Pretty sure that actually happened in the past, "advocate" or not. I'm sure it did and what I want to know is if edgbaston supported that as by his own logic ('intersectional' or otherwise) he should have |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by nyx on May 5, 2024 14:25:56 GMT
Even aside from the moral issues- I'm fairly sure that if there were any concrete evidence of the ideals espoused by some posters in this thread being actual party policy, it would be a violation of the equalities act? If, hypothetically, there was a shortlist consisting of a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu, and a Jew, the Muslim candidate were selected as PPC, and concrete evidence subsequently emerged of them being prioritized thanks to following the Islamic faith, then I would have thought the others would have grounds for a lawsuit against the party.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
|
Post by Sibboleth on May 5, 2024 20:18:03 GMT
This seems to be an argument at cross purposes? If Labour, or any other party, were to select a candidate for a specific minority (in this case a religious and communal minority: we don't even really mean Muslim, but South Asian Muslim) that is heavily represented in the constituency in question, there can surely be no obvious problem with doing so and defining that act as 'pandering' would seem to me to be a little absurd. Conversely, yes, picking a candidate entirely because they are a member of the group in question (or, equally, refusing to pick another because they are not) does not strike me as being obviously in keeping with the purpose and traditions of the Labour Party, such as they are. The two things are different.
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by nyx on May 6, 2024 2:18:02 GMT
Conversely, yes, picking a candidate entirely because they are a member of the group in question (or, equally, refusing to pick another because they are not) does not strike me as being obviously in keeping with the purpose and traditions of the Labour Party, such as they are. This is the matter that started the conversation: one poster (Merseymike) suggesting that Hugh Goulbourne would not be an appropriate Labour candidate for this constituency for the sole reason that he does not follow Islam. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on May 6, 2024 11:18:29 GMT
It is bit more nuanced than that tbh, he doesn't think he would be the right candidate *at this time*.
(especially since, heretical thought this but bear with me, Labour might actually want to give themselves the best chance of winning)
|
|
