Tell me, has a construction company in the USA ever been fined for having a crew made entirely of Mexicans? Has a Chinese restaurant ever been fined for employing ethnic Chinese only? I guess these equal-opportunity rules are only enforced against whites.

In the US, we've had it for 30 years. Only now getting some relief due to recent Supreme court decisions and some statewide referendums. Our experience is that giving some people government mandated preferences over other people, based on their genetic make up is a dandy way to keep racism and sexism going. Which happens to be particularly convenient for those folks in politics who get elected by pandering to same, not to mention being a bureaucrat's delight.

The actual purpose of affirmative action is to create a voting block which can be paid off. And who will reliably vote for those who support the pay off. In reality, this is government sponsered racism, not only in terms of perks for minorities, but an insult to them as well.

Who really believes that public money should be given to companies that are breaking the law by running "whites only" policies?  The rest of us are only discussing the details of the scheme, not its existence.

If those in authority are serious about their equality agenda then they have to do more than talk. (I am still astonished by a meeting which thought no special help should be given to 9-year-old girls as they should be responsible for standing up for their own rights to equality.) The particular level at which these quotas have been set seems strange, but that does not invalidate the principle.

I registered here especially to comment on this thread.  It seems to me sad that there is no mention of measures for the "minority" that is so large and its position underfoot so well entrenched that nobody usually pays it any attention.  I am pleased that Jim and Bob have noticed, though I do not share their apparent enthusiasm for my limiting my aspirations to working in childcare at minimum wage levels. [Sorry Bob -- I am a woman teaching IT when over 60, and I reckon an increase in the numbers of people like me would be all to the good.] Yes, the setting of realistic quotas for the employment of women is hard as usually they bear by far the largest part of family responsibilities, but that does not make it right to to encourage the exclusion of women from lucrative careers  or to pay low wages for traditionally "women's work" (how much would you charge for changing the dirty nappies/diapers of other people's children?). And women plumbers tend to get rave reviews from their customers!

There are plenty of reasons why having a diversity of people in employment is a good idea. Yes, we should criticise ill-advised measures, but not to the point where it is felt safer to let prejudice run riot.

This worked well to bring the US to its knees so now the brits want to follow?  Not only do you stock government and business with disgruntled minorities that can't possibly be fired you are essentially opening up everyone for "anti-discrimination" lawsuits that have overflowed US courts until they ground nearly to a halt.

...be sure to implement "comparable pay" as well. It really isn't enough to hire "x" percent women as auto mechanics for example because not all women want to be mechanics. Instead, define certain jobs as equivalent and require that pay scales match. Perhaps childcare is equivalent to engineering. Or medical assistant is equivalent to store manager.

Ah, top down economies. With results like they've achieved it's a wonder that some countries have not gone in that direction yet.   :) 

Yes, most certainly it is Marxist Egalitarianism in a new skin. Without mincing words, Britain's New Labour government is probably about (shall we say) 70% communist. It came to power on an unusually high female vote (as did Clinton). A word about the article's title. Tony Blair is not directing this 'stuff.' Tony Blair is only the media friendly, shining, toothy smile fronting the project. Behind him, and hidden, are legions of NGOs, feminist organizations, marxist busy-bodies, and social reformers, who have hold of the steering wheel. I think Tony Blair is under seige from these maniacal people. It is perhaps a measure of his strength (he is a committed Christian) that he still manages to keep things fairly stable and is at least doing the right thing vis-a-vis Iraq and Afghanistan, and anti-terror efforts at home. I don't like his politics, but he does possess some admirable qualities.

It will collapse, in the end, just like it did in the Soviet-Union. Indeed positive discrimination and the whole antiracism hoax is nothing less than marxist egalitarianism in a new skin.

This is going to be fascinating to watch unfold. One of the problems identified by IRIS - the consultants asked to produce a report on racial inequalities in employment - is that Muslims are less likely to be employed than other groups. Of course Muslims aren't a "race", so that muddies the waters even more. It may eventually occur to Her Majesty's Government is that the reason fewer Muslims enter the employment market is because that's what they prefer. Women are more likely to be at home.

So.... are the government going to force Muslim women to work at gunpoint? Or what?

And if proportions of fairness are to be maintained, what about fair representations of the sexes - got to be 50/50, especially in plumbing and care work; or ages - got to have a proportion of over 60s, especially in IT and football teams.

One would hope that the whole venture will collapse under the weight of its own absurdity. But I suspect not.

Bob Doney