'Positive action', not 'positive discrimination'
David Cameron is warning his party that he will impose all-women shortlists - once anathema to the Tories - on some local parties which have yet to choose their parliamentary candidate.
From January, Tory HQ will take control of the short-listing of candidates as they operate under what they call "by-election rules". The Conservative leader told this morning's Speaker's Conference that he still did not have enough women candidates. He predicted that if he got a majority of one at the election he expected that there would be nearly 60 women MPs. This would still lead to a cut of the number of women in Parliament. So I've been told that all-women shortlists will be introduced in one or two constituencies or a handful at most.
He called this "positive action" not "positive discrimination". Not all in his party will agree.
It is a sign of the times that on an issue on which his party clearly lags he was given an easier time than Gordon Brown who was confronted by two of his own MPs - Diane Abbott and Parmjit Dhanda - for not doing enough.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~20~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Not sure if I'm totally enamoured(spelling?) with this policy.
What if there are men that are simply better qualified and all women shortlists are imposed for the sake of 'equality'?
Doesn't seem very equal on the public who have to deal with a potentially less effective MP.
Saying this, I'm all for female MP's, providing they are up for the task and are qualified to do the job!
Complain about this comment
This strikes me as a bit of word twisting on behalf of Cameron.
Complain about this comment
Wise man is David Cameron. He realises that women in politics do not put personal ambition above conviction and a passion to help and to change things. Women do not start wars (Thatcher merely came to the aid of the invaded British Falklanders, laudable).
I have trust and faith that DC will do his utmost for the country and in trying to recruit more women he is showing a greater grasp and insight of what is needed than .... can't even bring myself to say the name.....Brown and his save the world entourage.
Complain about this comment
Big mistake Dave!
Isn't this what Labour tried in Blaenau Gwent before the last election and look what happened there!
Complain about this comment
Does this mean we will now have a complete rewrite of history along the lines of Harriet Harman's latest invective on these issues?
So it will now be; The Sisters Grimm, Big Sister, A Woman for all Seasons, The Woman who fell to Earth, The Woman on the moon, Band of Sisters, Seven Husbands for Seven Sisters, The Husband of Frankenstein, Desperate Househusbands..
And so we will go on until the entire country has been de-gendered and de-sexed and we are all paid exactly the same amount no matter how hard we work and this whole crazy, dystopian newlabour experiment at social, political, racial and gender engineering has completely and utterly numbed our senses.
They are leading us into a minefield of mind control and somehting needs to be done about it.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
Just as well we didn't do this in 1940.... Disqualifying Churchill because he was a fat, white, aristocratic male who therefore ticked no 'minority' boxes would have been rather unfortunate.
It also ignores the Tories most succesful PM of the modern times: Margaret Thatcher, who needed no positive discrimination to get where she got.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This is nonsense - the best candidate should be put forward, regardless of their gender.
Complain about this comment
Normal MO for "off the mark" blogs is to not comment (yes I know I am doing just that).
Maybe we should guide Mr.Robinson, by only commenting on more pertinent matters of the day (not to undermine the importance of equality in the house).....
It will be a good measure of how this blog represents the issues of the day AND the importance that the active community places on them...
Apologies if this is a little "Grandma sucking eggs"..... I agree with other posters that over the last few days, some key discussion areas have been overlooked.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Is there a blog missing? I read the first one timed at 10.25am telling us
all about the Speakers Conference.
Then I read the second blog timed at 11.28am telling us what Cameron had
said.
Must admit that I was drawn to it by the caption under your picture on the Politics page.
"David Cameron to impose all-women shortlists".
So the missing blog surely enlightens us to what Brown said does it not?
To help you out I did hear this bit from Brown (See how helpful I am?)
"Labour would increase support for lesbian,gay,bisexual and transgender
candidates at the next general election".
Why? It should be best person for the job.End of.
Complain about this comment
What is so wrong with "best person for the job"? Any kind of exclusion on grounds of race, gender, religion, etc. should be outlawed.
Complain about this comment
All men are created equal......but some women are more equal? Where is the equality? So sex discrimination is alright if it favours women? I think that this is a nonsense. The best person for the job after all that is what the country deserves. Not the best available woman: simply the BEST.
Complain about this comment
"From January, Tory HQ will take control of the short-listing of candidates...."
This is very disturbing. Not only from the positive discrimination aspect (to me discrimination is discrimination, regardless of how you qualify it), but also from the appearance that DC is directing this from Tory HQ. I believe Cameron was quite adamant at the Conservative party conference that power was going to be devolved or cascaded down to the local level wherever possible (in contrast to NewLabour's centralisation of power, which has been so disastrous).
Has this policy changed? Pity you didn't pick up on this Nick and get us an answer. As a Conservative by inclination, I would be deeply disappointed if DC was backtracking on those promises he made.
Complain about this comment
The dictionary definition of discrimination is that it is treating a person differently based on the class or group to which the person belongs rather than on that person's merit.
So if Mr Cameron does have such lists, there is no doubt that he is discriminating no matter what spin he chooses to put on it.
Surely, as with any competition, the job should go to the best candidate and not to fill any particular quota? To deny better candidates a chance to shine because they don't fit the required profile of sex, age, race etc etc. is appalling.
We have plenty of anti-discrimination legislation in this country but it seems that it can be ignored when it doesn't suit.
Shame really, I was going to vote Conservative at the next election, but not now.
Complain about this comment
So "positive discrimination" is only "positive action" if you're a mainstream political party. Yet if Nick Griffin said on Question Time this week that the BNP was not in favour of "racial discrimination" but was in favour of "racial action", all hell would break loose. Same old double dealing and double standards. What about progression on merit ? Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Tokenism doesnt work. NL have proved that.
If Cameron thinks he can reinvent this particular wheel successfully, he's a mug.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, more discrimination.. I thought the Conservatives would be above this sort of politically correct tittle tattle. If apply for a job, or a role on a committee etc I expect to be competing against others on my education, skills, talent, experience, competence and general suitability for the role. I don't expect colour, gender, sexuality, disability, country of birth (so long as I am legal in that country), number of heads I have etc to take any part in the selection process. So called positive action or all male/female/black/gay shortlists are discriminatory. Certain groups may crave equality in the workplace; more women on the board, more male teachers in primary schools for example but instead of dicriminating against different groups, the question should be asked 'why are no men going into teaching, women into high powered jobs etc'. The reason this isn't asked is because the powers that be are afraid of the answers and would rather hide these facts and instead fiddle the recruitment processes so that they get what they see as a representative group on any given forum.
Complain about this comment
Man, woman, dog, cat, red, blue - none of it matters as they all follow the same misguided and failing Economic policies.
It's the entire philosophy of Government that needs changing, not simply re-arraning the curtains and tablecloth - it's the house that's out of order.
Still - I suppose it gives Nick a job and the reactionaries on this blog something to argue pointlessly about.
Complain about this comment
Discrimination whichever way you look at it.
Worked soooo well for Lab too.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I agree with the ends (more female MPs) I can't see that those ends justify these means. This is intentional discrimination (positive or otherwise is meaningless, utterly subjective) - if a man now wants to be a conservative MP (strange in itself) he will be discriminated against in terms of his sex - how is that acceptable?
It seems to me is being looked at from the wrong end - the real problem is the lack of women wanting to go into politics in the first place - which is surely due to the way that politics in this country is conducted and viewed by the population at large. If I were a woman I would find this insulting as the implication is that they are inherently incapable of being judged as suitable on equal terms. This policy hightlights that either DC thinks that women are incapable (doubtful) or is a tacit agreement that his party is hopelessly and incurably sexist (more likely).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I see it is all men who come to the fore throwing bricks at the suggestion of more women in politics!
You are all just proving that criticism is usually born out of envy.
Could it be the young charismatic Dave for whom most women will vote is the object of your criticism? Methinks it is.
Criticism of Brown is constructive criticism because he is a total wally who picks his nose and women - no women I have EVER met - would vote for him. Well unless they are hippie, liberal or immigrant.
Complain about this comment
Sounds like an incentive for local parties to get their candidates in place before January then.
With just over 6 months before a likely election date I'd be surprised if that any of the main 3 parties haven't chosen their candidate for seats where they believe they have a chance to win. Will these imposed candidates therefore be fighting hopeless causes? If so, then this definitely is a PR exercise only.
Complain about this comment
Any sort of "positive discrimination" (I'll call a spade a spade, unlike Mr Cameron) immediately opens up the person who gets the post to accusations that they aren't actually up to the task, but only got in because they fit the required profile.
Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister on merit, any prospective MP should do so also.
Complain about this comment
6. At 12:05pm on 20 Oct 2009, Peter_Sym wrote:
"Just as well we didn't do this in 1940.... Disqualifying Churchill because he was a fat, white, aristocratic male who therefore ticked no 'minority' boxes would have been rather unfortunate. "
Isn't that a little presumtious and absolutist? Aren't you assuming that because Churchill got us through the war he was the only option?
Maybe there were many people that could have achieved exactly what he did - I mean don't forget he didn't actually fight did he?
I seem to recall he spent a lot of his time eating extravagant dinners whilst the rest of the country survived on rations.
- What a hero.
Complain about this comment
DC needs to very careful here.
All women short lists will always carry the doubt that, if elected, she is only the best women for the job, not necessarily the best candidate. This may be totally unjust for the women concerned. The only way to avoid it is for women to have to establish their credentials and therefore their right to the job by facing open competition against all-comers.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@ Mark_WE, post #2;
"This strikes me as a bit of word twisting on behalf of Cameron."
Indeed. Not much different from what we've come to expect from Labour, particularly during the Blair/Campbell years, huh? If Joe Public is likely to object to what you're doing... heck, just do it anyway but call it something else. Thus, "Discrimination" becomes "Action" - there you are, much better, right?
(Note to myself: Must remember, if I ever get short of cash, I can just defraud my employers and then tell the police I was merely engaging in a "Positive Cashflow Relocation Exercise". I'm pretty sure THAT isn't a crime of any sort!)
A pity, 'cos I was starting to gain a little respect for Cameron over these past few weeks; both for his hard-line stance on the MPs Expenses issue, and for the Conservatives' honesty about impending cuts at their recent conference.
But if he's not only announcing that he intends to engage in sexist selection practices, but also insulting my intelligence by assuming that he can just change the name of what he's doing... well, I'm not so sure.
@ flamepatricia, post #3;
"...women in politics do not put personal ambition above conviction and a passion to help and to change things."
Hmm... your real name isn't "Harriet", by any chance, is it?
No, not all women are perfect and yes, many women DO put ambition above all else. Your view is outrageously sexist and belongs in the dark ages. When you feel like joining the rest of us in the 21st Century, do let us know.
Seriously; you're living proof of WHY Cameron is making a big mistake, here. We need to keep people like you out of politics; not encourage them by giving them jobs regardless of whether they're competent - and fair-minded - enough to do them.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps Cameron should get Hattie in as a Special Advisor :-)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#2 Mark_WE
Are you joking?
The electorate want a referendum on political reform because the establishment doesn't work and Dave comes up with this idea that isn't really an idea anyway because he qualifies it with a 'might' (as with most of his ideas).
If he didn't twist everything so much to begin with, you 'might' have a point.
Complain about this comment
Agree with the general consensus, bad move.
Let hope he listens to sense and drops this before too much damage is done.
Complain about this comment
#16 Fubar
Since when has David Cameron really meant anything, Fubar?
It's another cheap headline grabber, oh and look, it's even made Nick Robinson's blog and we're all posting about a big 'if/could/maybe'. He hasn't commited to it like everything else he comes out with.
The Conservatives are New Labour mkII.... the ModCons.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
23
Patricia
Noone is throwing bricks at the suggestion of more women in politics. It is the method of getting it done that is offensive, to men and women (or should be).
Noone should be given any advantage, you stand and are elected on merit, not gender.
Complain about this comment
#23 flamepatricia
For once we agree on something.
I think there really needs to be more women in politics as well as many other areas of life. It's simply not fair that women are so poorly represented, and as you suggest, women will provide some much needed balance.
Complain about this comment
Discrimination is discrimination.
Just as free speech is free speech, and torture is torture.
There seems to be a depressing unwillingness, amongst politicians of all parties, to argue from first principles (call this a 19th century classic liberal tradition if you wish).
Since our greatest peace-time Prime Minister was a woman I'm all in favour of more Conservative female MPs. But not this way.
Complain about this comment
To answer those who respond 'the best person for the job': This might apply when the post involves some special skill, but as politicians require no skill whatsoever and almost anybody who can turn up and dress soberly most of the time and above all has no principles can do the job I don't think 'the best person for the job' applies!
Might as well give it to one of your friends then - funny that as that is what happens! The system is corrupt and male centric. Having women doing the job does not change to problem of the corrupt first past the post system where a very few people actually choose who sits in parliament.
More and wider participation is what is needed and far fewer professional politicians. Let us halve the number, enable voter recall have proportional representation, fixed terms and a two term maximum for all politicians both national and local. Let the people decide! We need and deserve a constitution!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just a thought....
Expenses claimed by career politicians who know nothing but working for the party......Central Office imposed lists?
Leading to more of the same.
Let the constituencies chose who they would like to represent then not who CO impose.
Complain about this comment
Baroness Varsi is an exemplary Tory woman politician. Had to get that one in.....
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Come on Cameron, I expect better of you than this nonsense. It is Labour which is supposed to engage in social engineering of this sort - the Tories are supposed to select candidates purely on merit.
Don't forget, we are the only party to have so far produced a female Prime Minister - because she was the best of the best, not because she was a woman!
Complain about this comment
Mr Cameron disappoints me once again....stop pandering to the politically correct and select on only one criteria...merit! If the present crop of women in parliament...jacqui smith, harriet harman, yvette cooper estelle morris, tessa jowell and not forgetting glynis kinnock (oh what happened to her, only lasted long enough to get a seat in the Lords and is then replaced!)are anything to go by, women have not exactly been the cream of MPs.
Complain about this comment
Positive discrimination,or this soi disant ''positive action'' was discredited 20 years ago.
Why a party which argues for competition and individual responsibilty,should take this up is baffling.
Sure,let women light up the wrong night,but not as a second best option.
P.S. Is it true that David Wiltshire is to have a sex chamge ??
Complain about this comment
It may be just the way I am looking at this - but the blog says the quota will be imposed on those "which have YET to choose their parliamentary candidate."
Surely this means that they will now have to speed up their selection process and ensure that the right candidate is selected for the right resasons.
Pretty good thinking on DC's part
Complain about this comment
It's one thing to force it down the throats of party activists, it's a different thing entrirely to force it down the throuats of the voters. These people forget, we the voters are entitiled to have the best posssible person, regardless of what colour rosette they flaunt, to represent OUR interests in parliamanet. Now, where's that BNP manifesto?
Complain about this comment
"CockedDice wrote:
With just over 6 months before a likely election date I'd be surprised if that any of the main 3 parties haven't chosen their candidate for seats where they believe they have a chance to win. Will these imposed candidates therefore be fighting hopeless causes? If so, then this definitely is a PR exercise only."
A lot of previously safe seats are now available because of the expenses row, so they might not be hopeless causes.
Complain about this comment
23. At 12:37pm on 20 Oct 2009, flamepatricia wrote:
I see it is all men who come to the fore throwing bricks at the suggestion of more women in politics!
******************************
We're not throwing bricks FP, we're asking Dave to be careful.
It would do the cause of women no good at all if they are elected to Parliament with the 'I'm only the best women' tag hanging over her.
As several have said on here, the best candidate is what we want. If that is also a woman that's great.
Complain about this comment
"Positive" discrimination is wrong. It is merely, as it says, another form of discrimination.
Equality can't exist with any form of discrimination. Adding it in any way, even if it is seen as "re-balancing" diminishes equality in the long run.
Complain about this comment
extremesense 32
"The electorate want a referendum on political reform because the establishment doesn't work..."
If you can, please give us a reference to any evidence (e.g. a respectably compiled opinion poll) of the public asking for a referendum on political reform. I haven't seen such a thing anywhere, but maybe you look in different places from me?
Complain about this comment
Brown accused of staffing Cabinet with ‘white Scottish men’
Brown faced tough questioning from Labour backbencher Parmjit Dhanda, who pointed out that before Mr Brown became PM two years ago there were two ethnic minority members of the Cabinet.
“There are none now, yet there are four white, Scottish men. Do you think this an acceptable state of affairs?” Mr Dhanda asked.
Roll On 2010 - Things can only get better.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"He called this "positive action" not "positive discrimination"."
That is because was talking bull..er..waste
Complain about this comment
I agree with Rob Pudney @25. This is a dangerous and technically illegal path that Dave is treading. Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister in spite of, not because of her gender; in truth, she was more of a man than anyone else in her Cabinets!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Of course its discrimination.
And another sign of the lack of true democracy in the country.
Labour did this and conveniently arranged exceptions in discrimination laws to get round it and now it seems the conservatives are buying into the same farce.
Any chance of having a "none of the above" option at all future elections?
Fat chance, we're given no option, and vote for the option we dislike least to prevent someone we really abhor getting in... and then they call it a "mandate".
Is it any wonder people don't vote or are disillusioned by the entire political system?
Complain about this comment
I'm all for more women in parliament, but it should be on merit only, in the same way as anyone else.
Then again if Caroline Flint was standing using her expenses paid glam photos (on merit the best looking MP for a long time)she'd definetly get my vote, if only to raise local issues with her in a constituency surgery!
Very juvenile I know but with a grain of truth methinks.
Complain about this comment
I know this may be a radical idea but what about "All local" shortlists ?
How about, instead of parachuting whatever Central Office clown into the seat the parties actually got local people to choose the local candidate they'd like to represent them in Parliament ?
Personally, I'm sick of all of the usual Party candidates being chosen to represent our area and as such I think a new rule should be brought in so that only people who are eligible to vote in an election are able to stand in the election. Therefore only residents of a constituency would be able to stand for election in that constituency and all of the central office candidates would have to go back to their own areas and stand for election there.
As far as all-women shortlists are concerned, I'd hate to be one of the women benefiting from this policy as she'll be forever labelled a party stooge that was unable to get elected on her own merits.
Discrimination is discrimination and can never be positive as it always results in someone being unfairly discriminated against.
Complain about this comment
34#
Who am I to say? The electorate will judge him and that is that.
Lots of other events that could happen in the meantime though.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It is the voters that will decide.
Complain about this comment
The Tories are well behind Labour on equal representation, so Cameron wants to speed the process up.
He gets dumped on by Tory supporters and APBLs for being discriminatory and criticised by Labour supporters and the rest for being a headline-grabber, ignoring the fact that Labour have gone through this already. The fact that Labour made some bad selections had nothing to do with their gender. The pool may have been made smaller but the talent is out there.
Sometimes positive or affirmative action is necessary to speed up a legitimate process which has been allowed to stagnate. It's not quite the same as parachuting the offspring of party grandees into safe seats. That is unacceptable.
Have those who 'want to see more women in the Tory Party' got any other ideas? Or do you wait another decade before things start to even themselves out??
Complain about this comment
Shame that on the same day, in front of the same committee, one Gordon Brown has been accused of discrimination towards non white, non Scottish members of his own cabinet by a member of his own party.
Naturally the great ditherer blustered his way through a reply including the incompetent attorney general who is incapable of even hiring a cleaner without causing a fuss.
Nice on Gordo, nice one son, nice one Gordo, Let's have another one.
ANd while you're at it: Call an election.
Complain about this comment
so firstly any one wishing to represent a party in any upcoming general election has to obey party rules first and foremost above what the voters want or whats good for the country.
so basicly we the voters are been given less choice and the country suffers due in main to party politics.
i would have thought if a person so wanted to represent their area then the wishes and needs of their area should take presidence above party, group,or general mob.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So, in order to get a statuatory number of women and candidates from ethnic communities the constituency committees will have to be a statuatory mix of these categories, which if population percentages are used will mean that in every ten members there will be 4 non ethnic men ,4 non ethnic women, plus 1 male and 1 female from the ethnic communities. We may then end up with ( assuming there is no external pressure ) 50% women and 50% male MPs from non ethnic communities and none from ethnic communities. To overcome this, non selected (democratically) ethnic community candidates will have to be shoehorned into post against the wishes of the majority. Is this any improvement on the current system of having constituency committee chosen candidates , hopefully chosen by majority.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't mind if it were not for the main argument against it.
Harriet Harmon - Low intellectual HP coupled to 70's sixth form feminism. Who can forget the "court of public opinion" - AKA mob rule a comment that a should know better before event thinking let alone putting mouth into gear
Jaqui Smith - Big State - Big Brother ID card cheer leader.
Margaret Beckett - Single Farm Payment fiasco and tried to justify claiming for a second home (in her constituency) while living in a grace and favour flat and renting out her additional London property (not required while living in grace and favour flat)
Can't think of a Blair Babe I would trust to open a garden fate let alone run a department
Complain about this comment
#28 Hayemaker
Ah, yes, but isn't Legg imposing retrospective limits on claims?????
Complain about this comment
#40 "These wars in the middle east are deemed necessary now because of the danger to the British people here on THIS island - a danger perpetrated by our own stupid government's actions in stirring them all up whilst joined at the hip to America."
Its off topic (and I agree with you on the Falklands) but you might want to remind yourself of timelines. 62 Brits (including my neighbour) BEFORE we were 'joined at the hip' with the US in Iraq. An Al Qu'eda cell was arrested in Leicester in 1999 but went almost un-reported because virtually no-one had heard of Al Qu'eda then. The "justification" for the Madrid train bombing issued by Al Qu'eda was vengance for the Spanish crusades in Grenada in the 13th century not Iraq so I can guarantee that there is SOMETHING in our past (and I'd start with the balfour declaration or the partition of Kashmir) that could be used to 'justify' anything these people perpetrate. The fact that the 7/7 bombers trained in Afghanistan is all the justification I need for us fighting there.
Complain about this comment
At the risk of being modded off.
The concensus appears to be poitive discrimination is still discrimination and therefore per se wrong.
Now how about truancy, childrens tsar and education perhaps that is a pertinent topic.
Complain about this comment
#52 jrperry
Labour promised to reform the House of Lords with a free vote at the last election - they got in. Since then, the banking crisis and expenses scandal have increased this appetite and lead to the creations of organisations like Vote for Change campaign.
According to YouGov who conducted a poll on behalf of the Electoral Reform Society their results were thus....
Among people intending to vote for the Lib Dems, the poll found 9% saying a referendum would make them "much more likely" to vote Labour and 21% "somewhat more likely" to do so. Only 4% would be put off. Among voters in the key Labour-held marginal seats, 17% would be more likely to vote Labour if the referendum were to happen, and 5% would be put off. Nationally 17% are more likely, 6% less likely.
Labour supporters would also be reaffirmed in their support for the party, with 30% feeling more likely to support Labour and 6% being put off to some extent. The only category of voters a referendum would put off would be those currently intending to vote Conservative, and that only by the small margin of 8%-6%.
Funny that bit about the Conservatives, you're a Conservative supporter aren't you?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#70
the list of blundering Blair babes is longer than that..
Have you forgotten:
Ruth Kelly who was reponsible for making a fist of the launch of HIPs; rushed through to ensure Tony's 'legacy'
Patricia Hewitt booed by the nurses conference while health secretary and responsible for the Rover fiasco during a general election (an issue that is still being swept under the rug)
Estelle Morris the uneducated education secretary who resigned after the A level marking fiasco to name but one of her numerous bloopers while in office.
Yvette Cooper - the woman who has turned the expression 'the right thing to do' into a catch all apologia for any incompetence.
Hazel Blears...need I say more?
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
From the BBC article
"Conservative leader David Cameron has said his party could introduce women-only shortlists"
From Nick's article:
"David Cameron is warning his party that he will impose all-women shortlists"
Is it just me that thinks there is a huge difference between "could introduce" and "will impose"?
Nick, just what IS your agenda?
Complain about this comment
extremesense 74
Yes, I am a Conservative supporter.
The one thing your post does not reveal, and nor does an admittedly very quick look at the ERS website, is, what, exactly, this referendum is supposed to be on.
Complain about this comment
# 65. TheBlameGame:
"The fact that Labour made some bad selections had nothing to do with their gender. The pool may have been made smaller but the talent is out there."
Logic would suggest that on average, a smaller pool of talent is likely to lead to the best in that pool being of lower quality than would happen with a larger pool (assuming the same average and a similar statistical spread of abilities - and the best candidates being selected).
So statistics would suggest we might end up with even worse MPs...if that's possible.
Surely the solution is working to remove the barriers that mean some demographics consider politics less desirable, not trying to ensure the reduced numbers that currently want to be involved are given advantageous treatment.
Complain about this comment
All women shortlists are a turn off for the majority of women voters.
How many times must they be told that women do not always trust their own sex to make the right judgements on their behalf.
If they put up the right calibre of candidate it doesn't matter what sex or creed they are. If they are seen as the right candidate for that constituency they will be elected by the people.
After the MP's fiasco of the last few months more people will be looking at the background and exoerience of their future MP and not at their colour or sex or any other orientation they may have.
Political parties could be in trouble if they insist on forcing inferior choices upon us again. We will just go elsewhere
After all the country is in such a mess the more choice of parties in parliament the better if it gives us a better standard of MP.
Complain about this comment
As expected there's a hubub about 'positive discrimination is still discrimination' and 'women should succeed on merit' but the big question remains unanswered. Is canidate selection a meritocracy in modern politics and if not, what should we do about the 'white male' positive discrimination that must exist as a result?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#70 rcemortimer
You have forgot the best one - Caroline Flint - she was only there for window dressing.
Complain about this comment
Missed the mark on this one for me, has Cameron, and shot himself in the foot instead. We've had enough of this nonsense already under Labour.
Complain about this comment
"extremesense wrote:
Among people intending to vote for the Lib Dems, the poll found 9% saying a referendum would make them "much more likely" to vote Labour and 21% "somewhat more likely" to do so. Only 4% would be put off."
That would have 30% supporting, and 4% of people put off - so the vast majority of Lib Dems wouldn't change their vote to Labour even if they are promised a referendum that would benefit their party.
"Among voters in the key Labour-held marginal seats, 17% would be more likely to vote Labour if the referendum were to happen, and 5% would be put off. Nationally 17% are more likely, 6% less likely."
So again the vast majority of people have no opinion on the referendum.
"Funny that bit about the Conservatives, you're a Conservative supporter aren't you?"
Think about this logically - of the three main parties which one is (currently) most likely to win the election under first past the post? Which party is the party that doesn't want to have a referendum on AV?
Oddly enough it is the same party both times.
The AV system that Labour wants to bring in would benefit the Labour and Lib Dem parties (as both parties are Centre Left you would expect their voters to list the other party as their second choice)
The party that opposes the vote is the one that is most likely to lose out - odd that!
Personally I would rather have FPTP than AV - as I don't consider AV to be a fair voting system (potentially you could end up with the situation where someone wins the election after being the first choice of a small percentage of the voters beating a candidate who had 49.9% of the first choice votes!)
If we are going to go for PR than it is far fairer to decide the election based on percentage of votes cast (i.e. if an area has 100 MPs and a party wins 10% of the votes they get 10 MPs)
Complain about this comment
#70 & #76
I don't think that those individuals and issues are an argument against women MPs, more an example of the incompetence of this government, let's face it their male counterparts haven't exactly covered themselves in glory & come on, forced to resign twice and unelected Mandelson is now probably their most influential member.
And people wonder why people are disillusioned with politics and politicians.
Complain about this comment
andy @ 82
glad to see you haven't abandoned your stance of making totally meaningless postings
I was just congratulating my good friend David Cameron on a rare, progressive sounding policy ... that not allowed?
okay maybe only for 2 seats, however it's a start and it's good to hear - I may not be the world's biggest fan of the Conservative Party but still (with one glorious exception!) give me Clownesses over Clowns any day of the week
Complain about this comment
To paraphrase, in fact, I'd say that discriminating for equality is like bombing for peace ;)
Complain about this comment
We've had a bucketful of 'Blair Babes' I just hope we're not about to be inundated with ' Daves Dollies'
Complain about this comment
1. At 1:52pm on 20 Oct 2009, Secratariat wrote:
I know this may be a radical idea but what about "All local" shortlists ?
How about, instead of parachuting whatever Central Office clown into the seat the parties actually got local people to choose the local candidate they'd like to represent them in Parliament ?
Personally, I'm sick of all of the usual Party candidates being chosen to represent our area and as such I think a new rule should be brought in so that only people who are eligible to vote in an election are able to stand in the election. Therefore only residents of a constituency would be able to stand for election in that constituency and all of the central office candidates would have to go back to their own areas and stand for election there.
===
Agree with you completely. My local MP is retiring at the next General Election to spend more time with his moat.
His successor as Conservative candidate has just been selected from a shortlist of 6. None currently lives in the constituency. (Neither does the encumbent, by the way. His country home is in a neighbouring constituency.) Four contested the 2005 General Election in different constituencies, Brent Eat, Hull East, Norwich North, and Easington. Clearly none of them has any affinity or connection with the new constituency they wish to serve, it is merely a stepping stone to get on the Westminster gravy train.
In their wisdom, the local electorate chose to replace a barrister from London with ........... a barrister from London. Plus ca change, etc.
Three men, three women,
Complain about this comment
"Positive action instead of positive discrimination" is a good idea - but this isn't it.
Positive action would mean scouring the Conservatives' Membership for new potential (female) candidates; running a campaign targeted at women to get them interested in applying in the first place; and offering a 'fast-track' route for women to shadow MPs, gain experience etc so they'd be ready for the job.
There are loads of things that all 3 parties should have been doing for years - because these aren't quick-fix measures - to make women more interested and more quickly qualified for the job. That would be positive action. This *is* discrimination - but I guess if you leave things till the last minute, then that's the best you can do.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Cameron had already lost my vote. Now he's lost it further. This discrimination is disgusting. Let the thing evolve naturally, for Pete's sake.
I'm sickened by this persistant favouring of minority groups, genders, what have you. Let people choose the representatives they want, not Cameron, not Brown, not Clegg.
You want to know why the public mistrusts politics and politicians? Add this stuff into it. I do not want a preselected positively discriminated person on my voting paper.
Complain about this comment
"88. At 3:42pm on 20 Oct 2009, djlazarus wrote:
To paraphrase, in fact, I'd say that discriminating for equality is like bombing for peace ;)"
I thought the expression was "discriminating for equality is like ******* for virginity"
Not usre f this will get moderated but, let's be honest, there's worse going out on the BBC every night.
Complain about this comment
On the subject of positive discrimination and all-female shortlists, the recent open primary by the Conservatives in my constituency had three women, three men, three from London, one from Norfolk, one from the north East, an investment analyst, a business consultant, a businesswoman, a farmer and businesswoman, a barrister and former army officer, and a retired army colonel. One from an ethnic minority background.
The white, male, London-centric barrister got the gig.
Complain about this comment
#75 jrperry
Yes, I would like to see all apparent wrongdoers (as in those who appear to have exploited the system) made to at least pay the money back. I believe Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper fall into that bracket, so yep, I would like to see those two penalised - as for the whole family, although even in Toryland surely collective punishment cannot be tolerated?
The reason I keep pointing at David Cameron is that he is very likely to be our next PM whereas many others aren't. Unlike Sir Thomas and most of the posters on this blog, I'm not living retrospectively - Dave is our future and I wouldn't mind him being tested or questioned just a little bit, especially as we're in it together.
Complain about this comment
"I was just congratulating my good friend David Cameron on a rare, progressive sounding policy ... that not allowed? - sagamix"
You know as well as i do that ALL of David's policies are progressive, enlightened and sound
Complain about this comment
Well people say that Gordon is out of touch its quite rare that the opposition party is also out of touch they normally try to get more votes by seeing it from the electorates point of view, the last thing we need is more positive discrimination, best person for the job will do.
Complain about this comment
74. At 2:44pm on 20 Oct 2009, extremesense wrote:
#52 jrperry
Labour promised to reform the House of Lords with a free vote at the last election - they got in.
===
Tony Blair promised reform of the House of Lord in 1997, it didn't happen. Tony Blair enlisted Roy Jenkins to look at electoral reform in 1997, then rejected his findings.
Funny that Bottler Brown (to quote Nick) only got interested in electoral reform when it looks likely that Labour will get a good kicking at the General Election and then face a Tory-inspired review of the electoral boundaries with the aim of eradicating the in-built Labour bias.
Why did it take him 12 years to become a convert? Then again, a man who doesn't even know what his favourite biscuit is....!
Complain about this comment
It is up to the Conservatives how they run their Party but the big problem with positive discrimination in any area, is simply that the most suitable person may be denied the job.
It probably does not matter that much when choosing a prospective candidate to become an MP but there might be other areas where positive discrimination may result in all sorts of problems, especially of the legal variety, if a 'better' candidate is not chosen because of positive discrimination.
Complain about this comment
#94 AndyC555
Thanks for that, I couldn't remember the exact term! But yes, agreed :)
Complain about this comment
71. At 2:23pm on 20 Oct 2009, extremesense wrote:
#28 Hayemaker
Ah, yes, but isn't Legg imposing retrospective limits on claims?????
------------
No, he is telling them what "reasonable" is. Subjective I agree, but honestly have very little sympathy for anyone charging gardening and cleaning bills to the taxpayer. Some of us have to look after our own gardens and clean up after ourselves.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick it appears that NuLabour’s conference bounce has been ovewhelming.
Ipsos-Mori UK poll just published:
CON 43% (+7)
LAB 26% (+2)
LIB DEM 19% (-6)
(The figures in brackets are changes from the poll taken just after the LD Conference).
Tories have 17% lead over NuLabour.
Roll On 2010
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#99 yellowbelly
Yep, I agree, there's nothing like the fear of defeat to make you want a democratic system.
A damascene conversion or just another trick? Either way, he knows it will appeal to the electorate and is likely to bring Labour voters out to vote (it's been a while).
Complain about this comment
I have come to the conclusion that women are invariably better than us men. Men are by nature incapable of multi tasking and don't work nearly as hard as women.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am outraged - can we have some democracy in this country please? - let 'call me Dave' dictate who you can vote for and propagate the corrupt system in the UK. Sign up here to register your protest if you care enough http://www.openupnow.org/sign-up/#
Complain about this comment
"104. At 4:40pm on 20 Oct 2009, extremesense wrote:
#97 AndyC
Errrrrrr, what policies? I know he's got lots of ideas no doubt gathered during illuminated dinner party debates with his like-minded chums and backers."
Whatever ideas he might have, can they be any worse than the shambles of the present Government?
It may well be the case that cameron goes to successful business people for ideas but far better that than the labour party which gets all its ideas from the classroom and the textbook.
Complain about this comment
Ive never understood this. Either you are the right person for the job or you are not, imposing conditions such as gender or ethnic origin or skin colour only makes the process that is trying to be fairly achieved unfair and skewed, much like we have PC gone mad with various organisations that have sprung up in the last 20-30 years.
Monty Python had it to a T in life of Brian and the "Popular Front of Judea"
Complain about this comment
106
Eh? Why would you want to flip a company car? What are you on about.
The comparison is not ridiculous, it is exactly the same situation.
The wrongdoers in my comparison would be the ones who, say, claimed a less expensive car and then chose to take the rest of the money anyway to do with as they pleased (for instance put a bathplug and a widescreen TV in the back).
Complain about this comment
creator of truly tremendous horse food (at 103)
but Mortimax has done nothing wrong!
well it was within the Rules yes
it's the old technical "I was only following orders" defence, isn't it?
think we are entitled to expect a little better from our probable next Prime Minister, don't you?
Complain about this comment
04. At 4:40pm on 20 Oct 2009, extremesense wrote:
#97 AndyC
Errrrrrr, what policies? I know he's got lots of ideas no doubt gathered during illuminated dinner party debates with his like-minded chums and backers.
Wouldn't it be great to really see some good policies?
Actually, talking of policies, I think he may have one.... the one where he destroys Ofcom immediately because it's a Quango - I think he came up with that policy after meeting James Murdoch (and I've a funny feeling that Ofcom gets in the way of BSkyB).
Strangely, Ofcom is one of those Quangos that isn't a drain on taxpayer resources at all as it contributes 400 million pounds to the Treasury.
Good old Dave, we're in it together you see.
===
I'll wager that you work for Ofcom. You never let an opportunity pass to remind us that it contributes £400 million annually to the Treasury.
Shockingly, this includes £38,000 annually at present from the RNLI. To rise to £130,000 from next April if Ofcom gets its way.
By the way, £400 million is equivalent to 2 DAYS of debt interest racked up by this government.
Complain about this comment
The problem with deciding the best candidate for the job depends very much on who is doing the deciding.With positive discrimination in favour of women you will get the best woman for the job.Similarly, with positive discrimination in favour of men you will get the best man for the job.
However, men and women often look for different things in candidates of whatever gender and arriving at a candidate who everyone agrees is the best might be next to impossible especially if the interviewing panel itself does not consist of equal numbers of men and women.
It might also be something of an insult to the winning candidate if it's revealed that candidates regarded as being better were excluded by virtue of their sex from being interviewed.
Complain about this comment
"it's the old technical "I was only following orders" defence, isn't it?" - Sagamix.
Not the same. Not in the same ball park, not even the same game.
That one was used by the Nazi camp guards. Surely not even you could draw a comparison between the holocaust and claiming interest on a loan.
Complain about this comment
"extremesense wrote:
A damascene conversion or just another trick? Either way, he knows it will appeal to the electorate and is likely to bring Labour voters out to vote (it's been a while)."
First off most voters don't really care, secondly the voters most likely TO care would be the ones who remember that even manifesto promises mean nothing to Labour and so they aren't going to put too much faith in a conference promise.
Complain about this comment
I think Cameron needs to rethink this one. New Labour went down this road before their election landslide in 1997. Remember all the Blair Babes that were splashed all over the front pages? Is there one of them, just one, that has lived up to the billing?
We need to have the best people, selected on merit alone, standing as MPs for all parties, and after the shambles of this parliament the need is all the more urgent. Allowing in mediocrity just to achieve some gender or ethnic target is the surest way to repeat the chaos of the present parliament and will do nothing to regain the respect of the electorate.
Complain about this comment
79. At 3:12pm on 20 Oct 2009, Reaper_of_Souls wrote:
Surely the solution is working to remove the barriers that mean some demographics consider politics less desirable, not trying to ensure the reduced numbers that currently want to be involved are given advantageous treatment.
Take your last point, RoS, but on statistics... if we based everything on stats would it necessarily make anything better? Remove barriers, change antediluvian attitudes absolutely. Should have been done long ago, what I'm suggesting is that to catch up, move things on to where they should be, one sometimes has take short cuts, albeit temporary ones.
Complain about this comment
114. At 5:04pm on 20 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
creator of truly tremendous horse food (at 103)
but Mortimax has done nothing wrong!
well it was within the Rules yes
it's the old technical "I was only following orders" defence, isn't it?
think we are entitled to expect a little better from our probable next Prime Minister, don't you?
===
The excuse was good enough for Flipper Darling, Bottler Brown, Chipmunk Blears, Two Homes Secretary Smith, McNulty, Hoon, Balls/Cooper etc, etc.
I think we are entitled to expect a lot better from our current government, don't you?
Complain about this comment
Regardless of what gender or ethnic background I am against imposed short lists from party headquarters.We already have a neutered parliament and filling it with members who owe their seat to the party leader instead of their constituents will further distance MPs from the voters.
Complain about this comment
Nick NuLabour have been operating all-women shortlists, quota systems, for years. Why do you think there are so many amongst the nonentities on the backbenches.
Complain about this comment
Rock Robin: Yvette Balls Cooper, Ruth Kelly, Margaret Beckett and the rest of the motely Labour shower are just as rotten as the men in their government.
I think you will find a Tory woman a breed apart from THAT lot so it's unfair to tar them with the same brush. Chalk and cheese.
One exception I would say is (was) Mo Mowlam. I thought she was rather good at her job and not as objectionable as the rest of them.
Complain about this comment
people keep arguing against all women short lists by quoting female politicians who have not been exactly outstanding - that's facile - proves nothing - sure there's been a few problem cases; Thatcher's the obvious example but I don't let that blind me to the enormous benefits of getting a better mix in the Powers That Be - you need to do a few simple questions if you want to explore this issue
q1 - do you believe that the quality of our politics would be vastly improved by a more equal gender mix? ... YES/NO
not many people say NO to this although there are some ... reactionary die hards like ... ooo let me think ... Robin
but if YES proceed to q2
q2 - do you wanna DO anything about it?
this catches a fair chunk of the population - the "I'm all right Jack" and the "Get on your Bike" brigade - plenty on here but why use a load of words when one will do ... Andy? ... oh okay then, a couple more ... Fubar Saunders
and if YES proceed to q3
q3 - but do you seriously wanna do something about it?
quite a few people fall at this hurdle - they pass 1 and 2 but come unstuck here at 3 - we're talking the "Motherhood and Apple Pie" club - the guys who like to say things which sound good but which they don't really mean - "All state schools should be as good as Eton" anyone? - this is a more respectable position than the first two but it's still distictly sub optimal - amongst them are some of my blogging "friends" so no names (no pack drill!) else they wouldn't be my friends any more
and finally, with a triple YES, the good guys get to q4
q4 - do you support all women short lists for Westminster?
it's still possible to fall at the last fence - some do - but if you go yes / yes / yes / NO! you need to come up with some alternative measures to achieve the objective - if you can't (or don't) you're a Sunday Driver, I'm afraid, and you go back to the bottom of the slide
Complain about this comment
Labour has no policies. Correction, they have one: Climate change! Did I not warn you that this would be the next phase of Brown's New World Order? Well it's happening. The phase not the change.
The sun is what causes the earth to warm up. We are only responsible for 2% of it. Yes!
What now, Brown, New World Order and New Sun Order..... Oooops forgot the Sun is not his favourite topic...!
Complain about this comment
Extremesense 106
I think you are missing the point (by the proverbial country mile) about the comparison of expenses (where there were few limits, and so Legg introduced a critereon to try to define what was, and what was not, reasonable) with mortgage interest (where there was a clear limit, i.e. a definition of what was reasonable, already in place).
I reckon you are trying to build a story out of confusing what is going to happen with what you would like to happen. Using Jon Snow's obviously speculative blog as the only evidence available is a bit desperate - Snow has no more idea of what is going on inside the Legg inquiry (which seems to be remarkably leak-free) than the rest of us. But as I said before, let's wait a while and see what happens. The egg may end up all over my face, or yours.
Separate subject: your 104. Ofcom's income arises merely because they are the body that manages the sale of bandwidth for commercial terrestrial broadcasting. I really don't think Cameron is quite so daft that, in getting rid of Ofcom's broadcasting "regulatory" (read trade restraining) role, he will forego that income. I'm surprised, really it demeans your posting, that you tried to build an argument by suggesting otherwise.
Complain about this comment
I'm inclined to think of Ann Widdecombe as a thoroughly commonsense practical person. She's just been on the news agreeing that Cameron's idea is barmy and could harm the reputation of women. As she points out, she and Maggie Thatcher show that if women want to make it in Parliament, they can. But it's important for every woman there to be able to look everyone else in the face knowing she arrived by her own merits and ambition, not through positive discriminatory lists.
As she also points out, comparatively few women put themselves forward for various good reasons. It would seem better to encourage more women to take an interest in public life than faking them there.
Complain about this comment
Discrimination is discrimination, end of story.
This is precisely the kind of tactic that plays into hands of parties like the BNP, and it should have no place in politics.
Discrimination is discrimination. People should be given a job on merit.
They should be trying to convince more women to apply, rather than trying to shoe-horn women into a job purely due to their gender.
If you have 1 woman with an IQ of 15 applying, but 10 men with an IQ of 150 applying, should the woman be given the job purely on the grounds that she's the only woman applying?
Discriminatory appointments are self-defeating; they make the situation worse when people see that a section of society are getting jobs purely due to their gender or race.
This is fuel for the BNP fire; they love this kind of thing, and Cameron should not be stoking such a fire.
I see this as no different to BNP tactics; it's simply discrimination. It's obsene and should not be allowed.
ask yourself this:
If labour or the tories are allowed to select a candidate purely because they're a woman, or black, then why should it be illegal for griffin to select a candidate purely because they're white? There's no difference; both are evil tactics that alienate specific sections of the population.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
creator of truly tremendous horse food (at 103)
but Mortimax has done nothing wrong!
well it was within the Rules yes"
Congratulations Saga - yet again you continue to milk this for all it's worth! But yet again you miss the point. Cameron used an allowance which is designed so MPs are not out of pocket by needing two houses (an allowance that includes the ability to claim mortgage interest as an expense) to claim the mortgage interest back on his second house.
Wow, he really twisted that rule to breaking didn't he!
"it's the old technical 'I was only following orders' defence, isn't it?"
If any Leader is going to claim that defence I would imagine it would be Brown - who had access to a Ministerial home but yet still claimed second housing expenses including costs to clean his house and look after the garden!
In fact at the times the expense scandal broke the PM, the Chancellor and the Home Sec all had dodgy expense claims!
Complain about this comment
sagamix 114
"Mortimax" and "...think we are entitled to expect a little better from our probable next Prime Minister, don't you?"
In order to avoid being defamatory, you have to establish some facts to show that there is something deficient in what Cameron has done. And you clearly can't do that - certainly you never have done in the dozen or so times that the point has been made to you. That's the whole point about making genuine accusations - you have to have something to back them up. It isn't a matter of you being able to say any old thing you like and try to cover yourself with "Cameron has to prove that what I'm saying isn't true" - that is simply not how it works. You have to produce some facts.
Until you can, STOP SMEARING!
Complain about this comment
I wish just for a change, men would ask what is it women want, instead of making the assumption that most women want a free ride in society. If we are to compete on a level playing field with men, which is what most women want, then this kind of action by Cameron or anyone else does not help our cause.
The only women who would want positive discrimination or positive action as Cameron calls it, are those that are probably not confident or capable enough to do the job in the first place. Have we not learnt from the Blair days, that putting a women in a position just because they are a women does not work. There were far too many women placed in the Government then who were not up to the job.
I would be mortified if I knew I had been handed my job just because I was a women.
Complain about this comment
Discrimination is discrimination, whatever the motive or the perceived previous imbalance. People should be selected on merits and nothing else.
It smacks of nanny state-ism. I'm afraid with the Tories wanting to bring back Hunting, Boris wanting to introduce road tolls, and now all-women short lists, many people will be turned off voting for them.
David Cameron has got this very badly wrong.
Complain about this comment
Nick, I have been waiting days for your latest blog....yesterday we had Ed Balls again treating Parliament with distain and arrogance, so I was sure you would have opened up a debate !!! But so such luck. However, I am now believing all the bloggers who accuse you of bias....you ignored the Balls story and come up with this Cameron small issue. Are you biased ???
Complain about this comment
125. At 5:27pm on 20 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
people keep arguing against all women short lists by quoting female politicians who have not been exactly outstanding - that's facile - proves nothing - sure there's been a few problem cases; Thatcher's the obvious example but I don't let that blind me to the enormous benefits of getting a better mix in the Powers That Be - you need to do a few simple questions if you want to explore this issue
q1 - do you believe that the quality of our politics would be vastly improved by a more equal gender mix? ... YES/NO
*****************************
Saga. You need to qualify that question by adding ' providing both genders are of equal ability'
Otherwise your question may as well read 'Would the quality of parenting improve if men had more babies?'
Complain about this comment
sagamix 125
"q1 - do you believe that the quality of our politics would be vastly improved by a more equal gender mix? ... YES/NO"
Not particularly, no. What is it about being a woman that, uniquely, you think can only be represented in parliament by women? What about ethnic minority groups? What about people who cannot speak English? What about people with sub-100 IQ? These are also significant groups who suffer serious disadvantages in the community, have experiences unique to themselves, groups for whom government policy has to be shaped, and who are seriously under-represented in parliament.
So why, saga, is resolving the parliamentary men/women balance, of all the vast range of balances that could be addressed, a unique priority?
Complain about this comment
jr @ 131
you have to establish some facts to show that there is something deficient in what Cameron has done
he's worth £30m - okay okay "nothing like that" is his mantra, so let's say £25m
the obvious way for such a person to buy a fairly modest house is outright
but he took out a mortgage
the amount was such as to generate the maximum allowable claim
how's that?
Complain about this comment
yellow @ 121
the excuse was good enough for Darling, Smith, bla bla bla
sure, but I was talking about Cameron
are you physically unable to allow an anti C comment to sit there without actioning your "Tory Rebuttal" service? - almost as if it's some sort of contractual commitment
Complain about this comment
I'm not in favour of all women shortlists for all of the reasons so well voiced by my fellow bloggers and I think that Mr C has made a rare error here.
Surely all of the parties have known about the problem of the lack of gender balance in Parliament for a long time now, why on earth have they waited until just before an election to address the issue. If this had been thought about a couple of years ago perhaps we could have had a process of selection which gave the best chance of selecting the most appropriate candidate irrespective of Gender.
Also agree with many posters that this is a fairly minor issue and surely there is something a little more meaty to be getting to grips with.
Complain about this comment
22
The Falkland Islands were originally attached to what is now South Africa, and have moved to their current position on a tectonic plate, rotating through 180 degrees in the process. This has been proved by geologists who have studied the rock rivers found on the Islands, the only other comparable rock structures being located in South Africa. You’re making it up as you go along, do you work as a research assistant for a MuPpet?
P.S. this occurred before 1980.
And women only shortlists? Well, that’s only 50% of possible candidates being discriminated against. Isn’t that illegal? Sorry, I forgot, the law of the land doesn’t apply to the political elite.
Complain about this comment
JRP @ 136
so why, saga, is resolving the parliamentary men/women balance, of all the vast range of balances that could be addressed, a unique priority?
because, JR, it's one strand of what is the single most important thing we could do to improve the quality of our political, business and financial institutions ... get away from this dominance by men ... not about fairness either, that's secondary, it's about performance
compared to this issue, most others pale - whether we reduce debt to 40 pc of GDP in 10 years, say, or 15 ... whether the basic rate of income tax is 25% or 30% ... just about every issue I can think of (except war and peace, race relations and education) is trivial compared to this one
Complain about this comment
This says that Girls aren't do it for themselves.
They will get Cameron's Babe's thrown at them.(Blair's haven't been a resounding success)
If I were a women I feel like I was being patronized.
As someone else said above if you would have put such a thing to Thatcher she would have bitten your head off.
There will be 2 classes of women MP's. Those who did it by themselves and those the needed a little help.
As a father of 2 girls this seems all wrong.
Complain about this comment
I really don't like applications restricted by age, gender, racial, cultural or sexual orientation for any jobs.
To a large extent this is no longer legal in the business and public sector employment environments. (Yes, there are some exceptions, where very specific working conditions allow emplyers to exercise pre-selection criteria. But there aren't many.)
You could always argue hat becoming an MP is not really getting a job - just a "secondment from other life" - which could last a few months or decades.
For instance, any MP elected between now and May could have a short job-span, while some could keep getting another contract with a maximum 5 year job-expectancy - but no guaranteed minimum. That depends on the biggest selection board that any job candidate could face - the electorate.
And, in many cases, the practical facts of political life can mean that an extremely good performer can be thrown out because his/her bosses made all the wrong decisions or noises (as perceived by electors).
I'm happy for anybody with the right qualities to be an MP. Don't fancy a "rigged" selection process where you try to achieve all that sub-divisional stuff about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
candidates that Brown seems to have recommended. Did he suggest a similar approach towards a balance between Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc sub-division? Or 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60 divisions within the "ageism" category?
I'm all for having women in Parliament. Not just because they are women - just because they represent a different way of thinking to my own (can't help being a bloke). Doesn't mean it's better (they can be just as stroppy, bullying, tunnel-visioned, emotionally turbulent and incompetent as men), but with a different take on life. Different hormonal composition, of course.
(BTW:
Getting a bit fed up with the Sagamix stuff about Dave's mortgage. If Dave (who I'm struggling to warm towards) had wanted to screw us all, he'd have loaded his London house with a huge mortgage to buy the Oxfordshire property outright. Then claimed that the Oxford place was his main home. And the Notting Hill pad was a second home. Almost certain to achieve more capital growth over a few years. Bit like the Balls/Cooper combo. You know, the place we go to work from, the place out kids go to school from isn't really, really a main property. And we may have both lived and worked in London before becoming MPs, but our "hearts" are elsewhere. Oh, yeah. Tried telling that to HMRC?
Don't think he's done that yet, has he?)
Complain about this comment
until the culture changes in the commons. This will only attract women who are more like men than men. Th@tcher and more recently widdicome are good examples.So will therefore only make a cosmetic difference. Biscuit expert Cameron seems to like cosmetic differences.
Complain about this comment
#5 ah you described the family courts most aptly there , you need to go join a bunch of superhero's.
#141 I would be quite prepared to have a house of commons full of M.Thatcher lady MP's as they would give perfomance as required by you
I do not have a problem with that would you then sagamix ?
Complain about this comment
136. At 5:57pm on 20 Oct 2009, jrperry wrote:
sagamix 125
"q1 - do you believe that the quality of our politics would be vastly improved by a more equal gender mix? ... YES/NO"
Not particularly, no. What is it about being a woman that, uniquely, you think can only be represented in parliament by women? What about ethnic minority groups? What about people who cannot speak English? What about people with sub-100 IQ?...
===
I thought the last two groups were represented by John Prescott?
Complain about this comment
#100 and a prime example of this is the family courts where perfectly
good fathers are denied the role of fatherhood in the life of there children as the best person for that role has been denied based on there sex
Complain about this comment
138. At 6:16pm on 20 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
yellow @ 121
the excuse was good enough for Darling, Smith, bla bla bla
sure, but I was talking about Cameron
are you physically unable to allow an anti C comment to sit there without actioning your "Tory Rebuttal" service? - almost as if it's some sort of contractual commitment
===
Only to the same extent that you constantly ignore the facts to make an anti-Tory rant. You rail against the Tories, I rail against the hypocritical champagne socialist Labour lot. All for the sake of balance.
Incidentally, you seem to Labouring (!) under the same misunderstanding of Cameron's wealth as iwilltellyouthis, just to try to misrepresent somebody.
Cameron is NOT worth £30 million. Samantha Cameron's parents are estimated to be worth £20 million, David Cameron's parents are estimated to be worth £10 million. Not the same thing at all. Just a cheap misrepresentation of the facts for the sake of mischief-making.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 137
"he's [Cameron] worth £30m - okay okay "nothing like that" is his mantra, so let's say £25m"
He says his main assets are his houses. He also says the family's main income is his salary and his wife's. His entries in the HoC register of members interests show (at least as far as I have read them) no income that would be consistent with having such a large bucket of cash as you describe.
The only source of "£30m" is the Mail On Sunday, quoting the editor of a book on being rich that I had never heard of and which he is obviously desperate to sell, with any tidbits he can construct. The only source of "£25m" is yourself. On that basis, it's reasonable to suppose his nett worth might be on order £3m, tied up in his equity in the houses. Any higher figure, you would have to show some evidence of. And you haven't.
The ball is in your court.
Complain about this comment
Is there a healthy ratio of men to women in the Conservative Party? Yes/No
Should there be a fair ratio of men to women in a modern 21st Century political party? Yes/No
Considering that it is now 2009 and most women were given the vote in 1918, how quickly should this be attained? Another century/Another decade/2 years
And for those wittering on about quotas, ethnic minorities, etc.:
Should a modern day political party reflect the society it represents? Yes/No
Complain about this comment
sagamix 141
"because, JR, it's [the men/women balance in parliament] one strand of what is the single most important thing we could do to improve the quality of our political, business and financial institutions... get away from this dominance by men"
Prove it! (Or at least provide some evidence.) Or are we meant to accept this as being a self-evident truth?
Complain about this comment
@flamepatricia: Sure, Thatcher was merely defending, just as Condoleezza Rice was just protecting the world from imaginary mushroom clouds, and I could go on about other female leaders like Elizabeth I or Bloody Mary; nobody ever admits being the aggressor, whether the politician is male or female. The notion that women leaders are peacemeakers and male leaders are warmongers is either delusional, or based on self-serving sexism rather than actual facts. By all means, don't exclude capable women from leadership positions; but don't exclude men just because of their gender, either. What is wrong with having leaders chosen on the basis of competence and policies, regardless of their gender?
Complain about this comment
While we decide how to divi up the seats in parliament, can anybody say how the ethnic communities will be served ? Will it be on religious grounds or on ethnic nationality, will Africans be lumped as Africans or represented as Somalis , Kenyans etc. How about a level mix of catholics and protestants, not to mention the Jedi Knlghts , druids etc. The list is endless,will we have seperate age groups properly represented ? What about Chinese ,Sikhs, Philipinos Australians New Zealanders ------- The economy is on the road to recovery, I saw a flying pig this morning , isn't Gordon Brown a lovable guy?
Complain about this comment
The USA went to this 'balanced society' view in the 70's - a Company workforce has to reflect the mix of male/female and race make-up of the employee catchment area. It just does not work! The best potential employee is not always hired. I know of one smallish Company (80 employees) in a small town that could not hire a replacement experienced bookmaker in the 90's because the only candidates were white female when they had to hire a male hispanic.
Harriet Hopeless laws rule!
Complain about this comment
Saga
Based on the number of unique contributors to this blog, the audience is probably somewhere between 5 and 10 thousand. I'm sure we've all read your Cameron mortgage posts (irrespective of the actual subject) often enough - PLEASE change the record!
Repitition is not going to change reality, and it makes you look ... foolish.
BB
Complain about this comment
Well done Dave - embracing ZaNuLiebour's core principles of racism and sexism.
Complain about this comment
JR @ 136
what about (1) ethnic minority groups? (2) people who cannot speak English? (3) people with sub 100 IQ?
(1) it's way false to compare women with ethnic minorities but, yes, of course it's important that ethnic minorities are properly represented
(2) can't speak English? - major handicap to being an MP - not sure what your point is
(3) just fatuous
Complain about this comment
jr @ 151
Prove it! (Or at least provide some evidence.)
I'd have thought the disaster zone that is our financial services industry, large companies, House of Commons, Conservative party, trades unions etc etc is rock solid evidence, no?
Complain about this comment
This is not discrimination against women, its just "not like me" discrimination. All the conservative policy does it put more women in, who are then treated like they got their not on their ability but on merit of being a women, so they are no invited to the core groups that make policy...so now 50% women in the policy groups? Where do you stop.
Perhaps we should have constituencies where you can only run if you went to a comprehensive and didnt get a degree from one of the top universities. If you look at the MPs you will see that the biggest factor for being an MP is a private education and doing law or politics at Oxford.
You will find its harder for a white male who didnt go to the right schools to become an MP for the conservatives than it is for a private school educated women.
So where do you stop, well expeience seems to say usually at any point where you recognise that poor white males are the worst off at social mobility...and its still taboo to point that out.
If you cant get enough women in because they dont have the right "mates" or because they dont belong to the right clubs, or they dont have the right experience....then surely you set the requirements of the candidate selection to specifically exclude selection on those areas.
Complain about this comment
Seems to me that Cameron's reason for this is that Paliament/ Government exists to represent us plebs. As we are split roughly 50/50 male and female I see nothing wrong with his reasoning but his method is wrong.If there are on average only say 1 woman and 5 men interested in becoming a candidate for a seat then by the law of averages it is inconceivable that we would end up with an equal number of male and female candidates being selected to stand. To try to force the issue is unlikely to be in our best interests. What he should be aiming for is to encourage more ladies to apply for selection so that there is a more even balance to start with.
Complain about this comment
I see no mention of people from working class backgrounds in any of this. A taboo too far for the political elite?
Complain about this comment
bovine @ 155 re the "Mortgage" ...
Repitition is not going to change reality, and it makes you look ... foolish
thank you! - your best friend is the one who tells you you've got bad breath, right? - and FOM is saying that too (143) I see
but please note that I didn't raise it on this blog, I was just responding to the "Cam Did No Wrong" brigade
anyway let's move on, you're quite right ... but as a matter of interest, which is your favoured defence of Cameron?
- the technical (within the rules) defence? ... or
- the relative (others were worse) variation
Complain about this comment
Hot of the press - another poll:
ICM/Guardian
Con 44%
Lab 27%
LD 18%
17% Conservative lead - giving them a majority of 140 seats.
Complain about this comment
Appears that Jacqui has been exposed…. again
Complain about this comment
portcullis @ 142
if I were a woman I would feel like I was being patronised
it's quite the opposite I think - at present (and especially in the Tory Party) women MPs are rare creatures indeed and as such they feel all "special" - it's very easy for them to stand out and get promoted without being that good - that's why the likes of Ann Widdicombe oppose this idea, I would imagine - if there were 325 female MPs at Westminster that would all change
Complain about this comment
Sorry but this policy has NO PLACE AT ALL in the Conservative Party. Personally, I couldn't care less if all the candidates were women PROVIDED they won on merit rather than gender. Cameron would be better off pledging what we all need-zero tolerance on sleazy MP's, massive hardening on law and order, greater workplace protection, a pledge to keep the Minimum Wage (one Labour Policy that was introduced and was absolutly necessary)and proving a solution for Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
162. At 8:21pm on 20 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
bovine @ 155 re the "Mortgage" ...
Repitition is not going to change reality, and it makes you look ... foolish
thank you! - your best friend is the one who tells you you've got bad breath, right? - and FOM is saying that too (143) I see
but please note that I didn't raise it on this blog, I was just responding to the "Cam Did No Wrong" brigade
anyway let's move on, you're quite right ... but as a matter of interest, which is your favoured defence of Cameron?
- the technical (within the rules) defence? ... or
- the relative (others were worse) variation
Indeed, PLEASE lets just move on, but not just on this thread...
Complain about this comment
sagamix 157 158
My response to the first point is, there are many distinctive groups in society (I gave examples; many more could be listed) who might benefit from better representation in parliament. All of these groups would claim in some way to be disadvantaged. They might also claim that society is poorer as a result of their disadvantage. But of all these categories, you (and many others, of course) pick women as their favourite group to rectify the differences with and feminism as their favourite way of achieving this. Why? You didn't give a reason, of course, so naturally I asked for one. And I haven't seen one yet!
As far as your second point is concerned, it is hard to recognise several of the organisations you listed as "disaster zones" anyway, and even harder to see precisely what it is that having, specifically, more women in them would achieve in terms of reducing their tendency to become disaster zones. Again, you provide no reasons!
Am I to take it, therefore, as I asked before, that as far as you are concerned, the case for ardent feminism, in general and as a political priority, is one that needs no specific justification - in other words, that it is to be regarded as self-evident?
Complain about this comment
It's sexist. Simple as that. I would hope that anyone stopped from standing in their area because they were a man takes the party to court.
Complain about this comment
saga, by the way, are we to take the absence of a response to my post at 149 or yellowbelly1959's post at 148, and your effort to distance yourself from the issue at 162, as an indication that your "Mortimax" story is now over? You may have the last word, so long as it is the right one too.
Complain about this comment
> 169. At 9:00pm on 20 Oct 2009, opaqueentity wrote:
>
> It's sexist. Simple as that. I would hope that
> anyone stopped from standing in their area
> because they were a man takes the party to court.
He couldn't. Some years ago ZaNuLiebour changed the law so that it could lawfully exclude men in this way. Obviously you can't exclude ethnic minorities - that's racist - and you can't exclude women - that's sexist - but excluding white men? That's absolutely fine.
As I said earlier - ZaNuLiebour, racist and sexist to its core.
Complain about this comment
Since someone has referred my comment at 171 I'll see if I can re-phrase it without the most painful part of the truth ...
> 169. At 9:00pm on 20 Oct 2009, opaqueentity wrote:
>
> It's sexist. Simple as that. I would hope that
> anyone stopped from standing in their area
> because they were a man takes the party to court.
He couldn't. Some years ago this government changed the law to make it legal to discriminate against men in that way. That's what they mean when they use words like "equality".
Complain about this comment
Sagamix@ 125: "Q1 - do you believe that the quality of our politics would be vastly improved by a more equal gender mix? ... YES/NO
Not many people say NO to this although there are some ... reactionary die hards like ... ooo let me think ... "
Dear Saga: please explain - to me if to nobody else - how and why "the quality of our politics would be vastly improved by a more equal gender mix". If you are going to describe anyone who answers "NO" as a reactionary diehard then you must prove that a more equal gender mix is *by definition* going to lead to a vast improvement in the quality of our politics.
Personally I see the imposition of one particular gender as abhorrent. A "male only" short list would be howled down; so should a "female only" one. How about a "no lawyers" shortlist? Or no bankers? Now *those* might get some support...
Surely we need candidates (irrespective of party) who have a better understanding of life at the coalface; it would certainly take away the excuse of needing second jobs "to have a better understanding..." and all that guff.
Complain about this comment
you and the numbers @ 167
indeed, PLEASE let's just move on, but not just on this thread
what, so the Mortimax issue is completely banned for all time! ... gee whizz
was in fact going to drop it but (seeing as you've raised it again) we may as well get YOUR view
so, the Cam mortgage ...
- good thing?
- bad thing?
- thing?
Complain about this comment
Will this also apply to the leadership elections?
Complain about this comment
jr @ 168
am I to take it that as far as you are concerned the case for ardent feminism is one that needs no specific justification - in other words, that it is to be regarded as self evident?
er ... if you consider support for more women in positions of power as "Ardent Feminism" then that rather says something about you! (and clue ... it's not good)
and of course I will NOT be falling for the old "burden of proof is on me" trick - women make up about half the adult population (the other half being men) - it's the default position that they should be far better represented amongst the powers that be - ying and yang - if you want to argue otherwise, it's for YOU to dredge up some supporting logic and/or evidence
Complain about this comment
Brown implemented his own policy of positive discrimination, and it netted him such failures as Hazel Blears, Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman. The simple truth is, whilst you can take steps to ensure women will hold seats, you can't ensure that they'll actually be GOOD AT THE JOB. This is something many advocates of positive discrimination in the workplace seem to be incapable of comprehending. People can bleat on about the inconsistencies, the "Old Boy's Club" mentality and so on, but ultimately as soon as positive discrimination rears its ugly head, it's tantamount to an admission that equality is a myth. Were I a woman, I'd find it insulting to gain a particular position by virtue of my sex, rather than by my ability to outshine ALL other candidates, whether female or male.
Of course, I certainly won't deny that there are plenty of men out there who will take a dim view of a prospective candidate purely because she's female. However, they're not going to change their perspective if they get an all female choice rammed down their throats - in fact it's likely to make them even more belligerent when it comes to the prospect of accepting women on equal terms in other aspects of their lives (workplace decisions and so on).
Personally, I don't give a monkey's hairy bum cheeks what the ratios are, so long as the MPs can do the job well, aren't prone to corruption (Hah! As if that's possible these days...), and are working for the overall good of the country (Again, I find myself an unbeliever). I do, however, strongly believe that all-female shortlists, whilst ensuring an influx of female politicians into the Tory ranks, is a step in the wrong direction in the long run.
Positive discrimination in any form, is an admission of the failure to break down barriers, be it between the sexes, between different ethnic communities, or whatever defining factors that place individuals into differing physical and social categories. What we have to be asking is why regular discrimination still exists, not how low we have to sink in order to forcibly counter it.
Complain about this comment
What about all 'white working class male' candidate lists? Or perhaps 'West Indian shop keeper' lists? or 'under 21 lists'? .. doesn't make sense does it?
Unfortunately the rhetoric employed by our politicians is not seen for itself.
Rhetoric = lies.
Complain about this comment
and of course I will NOT be falling for the old "burden of proof is on me" trick - women make up about half the adult population (the other half being men) - it's the default position that they should be far better represented amongst the powers that be - ying and yang - if you want to argue otherwise, it's for YOU to dredge up some supporting logic and/or evidence
Just because women account for half of the population, doesn't mean they're automatically entitled to a discriminatory advantage in order to beef up their representation.
Being frank, people like you are causing the degradation of the vision of equality between the sexes that many 20th century feminists fought for. You - for some reason - believe that forcing women into the picture via discrimination is actually going to do some good, when in actuality it will only serve to polarise the attitudes of more men against the concept of sexual equality in the workplace.
I think perhaps you need to take a step back and consider the fact that positive discrimination in favour of women is only hurting their push for true equality in the long term. Yes, without it there's still a long, hard struggle ahead. However, the mountain becomes ever more insurmountable the more often the sex card is played to give women a competitive edge.
Complain about this comment
benjy @ 177
were I a woman, I'd find it insulting to gain a particular position by virtue of my sex, rather than by my ability to outshine ALL other candidates, whether female or male
you're looking at things the wrong way round - the "soft" promotions are what happen NOW simply because there are so few women contenders - those there are find it easy to stand out and are able to succeed without necessarily being that good - it's unfair on men if anything - if we have appoximately equal numbers of men and women, all that will change and the women who get to the top are more likely to get there on merit - do you see?
Complain about this comment
benjy @ 179
just because women account for half of the population, doesn't mean they're automatically entitled to a discriminatory advantage in order to beef up their representation
this is not about fairness ... it's about the quality of our political, financial and business institutions
they're a disgrace at present and this is the best way to fix them
Complain about this comment
What sagamix and the other ignorant souls who think this discrimination is a good idea are doing is falling for the simplistic logic that sagamix eloquently (but laughably) outlines in #125.
This logic is borne on the basic that "women" have a unique viewpoint that will somehow revolutionise politics, built into their chromosomes or something (I'm assuming)
What is being ignored is this simple fact:
EVERYONE has a unique viewpoint.
Some of these viewpoints will indeed revolutionise politics, given the opportunity to do so. Some of them won't, because they'll be dim-witted, criminal, weak-willed, sheepish, or generally incompetent.
But this distinction has absolutely nothing to do with gender. Just personality. Which is why we need the right PEOPLE in politics, not just an exact average mix of what everyone looks like on the outside.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 174
Tut tut!
And 176
My professional experience is limited to scientific research - at university (rather a long time!), in a public sector organisation and in a multinational company. Across my time in all of that (29 years), the number of women working in the sector, at all levels, has increased. The only reason for that is the increasing number of women doing science O-levels, then A-levels, then degrees. I have never seen any evidence that anything political (in the broadest sense) was involved in the increase of numbers. I have never seen any evidence of afirmative action. I have worked for a person who happened to be a woman. I have had people who happened to be women working for me. I have never thought for one moment that any woman who I worked with was where she was, or going where she was going, for any reason other than her job skills.
My sister is a senior accountant in a multinational. Likewise, I think she is where she is because of her job skills. I have never heard her say at any time, and we talk quite a lot, that being a woman had ever either held her up or accelerated her advance.
I think sexism did exist in the workplace, but I honestly think it is history. That's good. We are more advanced as a nation because we have more high quality people available in the professional workplace.
In politics, I have never heard in recent times of a person either becoming a candidate or not becoming a candidate because she was a woman. I think sexism is becoming history in politics, certainly in the context of politics as a career.
So, on the basis of everything in front of me, women get where they want to be, in the professional sense, on the basis of their skills. Without either help or obstruction. That is the situation right now. That is not to say that it always was that way, nor that some aspects of feminism have not had their part in getting us to where we are now. My issue is that, in the work environment, sexism is history and feminism, in the sense of afirmative action or "special measures", is an anochronism.
Complain about this comment
#180 sagamix
it's unfair on men if anything - if we have appoximately equal numbers of men and women, all that will change and the women who get to the top are more likely to get there on merit - do you see?
=============================================
Would you say that the same was true if we had approximately equal numbers of left and right handed people in parliament? Perhaps southpaw's have a unique insight into things that us righty's don't? Surely this is unfair on lefty's?
Complain about this comment
#181 saga again
this is not about fairness ... it's about the quality of our political, financial and business institutions
they're a disgrace at present and this is the best way to fix them
============================================
Children seem drastically unrepresented in our political, financial and business institutions. I'd trust a child maths prodigy as chancellor far more than Darling (or Brown) because they might have some concept of the staggering numbers involved with their incompetence.
Why aren't you shouting about the rights of children being under-represented?
Complain about this comment
Nick I read the following article with regards the Speakers meeting and found it very informative.
A relevant House of Commons would not need quotas.
The Commons is seen as a self-serving elite that bears no relation to the population as a whole.
Furthermore, if the Commons really wished accurately to reflect the nation, the one quota the parties could usefully impose would be age related, since 40 per cent of the population is over 50. That might have the added advantage of bringing into Parliament people who had achieved something.
I was especially drawn to the last paragraph, it actually made sense. I am sure that many will agree.
Complain about this comment
Positive or for that matter negative discrimination is an oxymoron there is just discrimination.
I am all for more women in parliament and in senior positions in public and commercial life having had grandmother and several great aunts all play prominent rolls in the Suffrage movement.
However there should be only three criteria:
1. Are they good enough for the job
2. Do they want to do the job
3. Have they or can they win the support of their peers and subordinates
We have had on all the benches in both houses over the latter half of the 20th century some very strong, very powerful women who have met all the criteria above and proved extremely good politicians in fact after Churchill the best Prime minister of the entire 20th century was a woman and a conservative as well.
So my advise to Mr Cameron is leave the woman who want to work their way through to get on with it, that gives you women like Theresa May and Ann Widdecombe and other of character.
If we look at the opposite benches which once used to boast some very talented women Jennie Lee, Bessie Braddock, Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams, Betty Boothroyd .These were all women who filled the criteria above and carried out their work with commitment and integrity. Something which seems to be sadly missing amongst the encouraged women in the government today and especially the cabinet at the present
So yes more women please, many more but no list, come on girls get in there and win it on the issues that matter. Win it on merit not a golden ticket you will feel better, do a better job and we the voters will all be better for it.
Complain about this comment
What concerns me about the representation in the House of Commons is the fact that the legal profession etc, is way over represented in that particular body. The house as a whole does not reflect the composition of the working population of Britain. When I apply for a job I expect to compete on merit, not get a "bye" because of some PC reason. Given that most of the MP's orginate from the "chattering classes" it is no surprise that a lot of people are getting curious about the BNP. As recent events have shown a fair number have even voted for them. This may be due to the fact that a lot of people feel that the mainstream parties have lost interest in the issues that affect them.
As for the Falklands war, that was a conflict that came along at the right time to save a government that was riding a rocky road to say the least. Have a little foreign adventure, wrap yourself in the flag and get in again after calling a snap election. Mussolini tried the same tactic in Ethiopia (Abbyisinia) when things were not going too well for him. Unfortunately for him that particular foray was none too successful!
Complain about this comment
mr perry @ 183
okay JR, that is kind of Direct Testimony and so I of course accept all of it - but I'm not a fan of real world experience informing political policy - it sounds like a good idea ... absolutely it does ... but it can actually be very distorting - I prefer more of a "Mental Laboratory" approach if you know what I mean
Complain about this comment
hack @ 187
the best Prime minister of the entire 20th century was a woman and a conservative as well
less of the satire please ... just goes over people's heads
Complain about this comment
lazarus @ 185
Why aren't you shouting about the rights of children being under represented?
not at all sure what I'd get out of it but yes, I can do that if you'd like me to
Complain about this comment
Isn't it about time we had a major overhaul on how we elect MP's.
I'm sure in this so called modern society we live in we have the technology to have a system that gives the voter more of a say in how/what the party elected should be doing/saying on our behalf.
Do we really want instances of positive discrimination?
Complain about this comment
Nick:
I am glad, with David Cameron's remarks about having
more ladies in the Next General Election in the United
Kingdom....
PS: I am not affiliated/associated with the Political
party(IES) in the United Kingdom....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
" q1 - do you believe that the quality of our politics would be vastly improved by a more equal gender mix? ... YES/NO
not many people say NO to this although there are some ... reactionary die hards... " Sagamix.
Just how high is that horse you're sat on?
Vastly improved? Where is your evidence? You have none. Like so many arguments of the left, you start with a premise designed to divide. Anyone who says no, is a 'reactionary'. Not someone who has a different opinion, no, a 'reactionary'. Emmotive, inflamed language.
STILL waiting to learn what it is you do (if anything) for a living that gives you such insights on life.
I can only conclude that you are embarressed about your occupation (and no, some fatuous remark about it not mattering just won't do). I'm sure no-one else on here would be shy to let others know what they do, it just gives a backdrop to their remarks. Gives them credibility.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 189
"but I'm not a fan of real world experience informing political policy"
It's amusing, how preposterous that statement sounds on its own!
But I would agree that a bad policy would be one that was unbalanced by being made drawing only on a limited range of experience. I would be interested, however, if anyone could identify a work area where sexism of itself is still a significant factor. The reason being, I suspect that any shortage of females occupying jobs at a given professional level is entirely to do with a shortage of available female candidates with the necessary qualifications, experience and motivation. Therefore, any effort to accelerate females over males in the professions is unlikely to be successful - it would simply result in jobs being performed by people lacking the full range of skills to do them properly.
The way ahead is to continue to encourage a process that is already happening (and has been happening for decades) - females themselves being increasingly willing to set up their careers by taking up the full range of study subjects available to them in the schools. Whatever perceived problems there are in the male-female balance in the middle and upper layers of individual career structures will then be resolved in the most appropriate (and least patronising) way - the increasing supply of women with qualifications, experience and motivation to do the senior jobs.
Complain about this comment
jr @ 195
I would be interested, however, if anyone could identify a work area where sexism of itself is still a significant factor
okay I'll kick off - and this one based on that old "personal experience" thing we've agreed must be treated with caution
The City
(in particular the front office ... sales and trading etc)
Complain about this comment
andy @ 194
STILL waiting to learn what it is you do (if anything) for a living
fair question - I guess I'd say my principal occupation is exploding the reactionary myths and fallacies peddled by the likes of your good self - the pay isn't great but there IS a fair degree of job satisfaction
Complain about this comment
195#
sagamix 189
"but I'm not a fan of real world experience informing political policy"
It's amusing, how preposterous that statement sounds on its own!
I'm not sure whether you're totally surprised by that revelation though, JRP? I know I'm not.
Goes a long way to explaining certain things, doesnt it?
Complain about this comment
197#
"fair question - I guess I'd say my principal occupation is exploding the reactionary myths and fallacies peddled by the likes of your good self - the pay isn't great but there IS a fair degree of job satisfaction"
So: you're unemployed and on JSA then.
Perhaps selling The Big Issue or giving away the Evening Standard outside Golders Green Tube Station as a sideline?
Complain about this comment
150. At 6:52pm on 20 Oct 2009, TheBlameGame wrote:
Is there a healthy ratio of men to women in the Conservative Party? Yes/No
Should there be a fair ratio of men to women in a modern 21st Century political party? Yes/No
Considering that it is now 2009 and most women were given the vote in 1918, how quickly should this be attained? Another century/Another decade/2 years
And for those wittering on about quotas, ethnic minorities, etc.:
Should a modern day political party reflect the society it represents? Yes/No
------------------------
No it shouldn't. After all, how intelligent is the average person?
As a taxpayer I want the best people.
And as long as they are themselves aware and able to deal with issues concerning people of a different race, different sex, and different sexuallity to themselves with fairness, then whatever demographics they fit are fine with me.
BTW saga, Harriet doesn't fit in this category - not by a long way.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 197
You seem to be admitting to being a professional blogger - interesting!
I'm also intersted in your 196. Can you be a bit more specific? Is the male-female balance at senior levels affected by a lack of supply of women gaining skills and experience at the lower levels, i.e. a problem of recruitment, or is it that there actually is a plentiful supply of women at some point in the career structure and a genuine reluctance of the companies to allow them up the ladder simply and explicitly because they are women?
Complain about this comment
197. At 08:38am on 21 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
andy @ 194
STILL waiting to learn what it is you do (if anything) for a living
fair question - I guess I'd say my principal occupation is exploding the reactionary myths and fallacies peddled by the likes of your good self - the pay isn't great but there IS a fair degree of job satisfaction
-----------------------------------------------------
Thats doesn't sound like a job - more like a jobs-worth.
Complain about this comment
"you're looking at things the wrong way round - the "soft" promotions are what happen NOW simply because there are so few women contenders - those there are find it easy to stand out and are able to succeed without necessarily being that good - it's unfair on men if anything - if we have appoximately equal numbers of men and women, all that will change and the women who get to the top are more likely to get there on merit - do you see?"
- Sagamix
You seem rather adept at writing tosh, to be honest. Female-favouring, discriminatory promotions occur now for the same reason police forces were, at one point, discriminating against white Brits; fear of reprisal over "unequal" makeup statistics. That fear is derived from influential lobby groups who bleat on about the inequality between the sexes, demanding affirmative action because apparently it's inherently unfair that men have a majority representation when it comes to powerful workplace positions. What they - and you - simply don't realise, is the fact that forcing statistical equality into the workplace will do absolutely nothing to establish a lasting equilibrium; it will instead create a lasting resentment.
Furthermore, do you actually think that crow-baring women into ranking positions will actually provide them with any real influence? Of course it won't, because they'll simply be excluded by their male counterparts who a) have in the main achieved their positions through ability, and b) can continue running things by simply increasing their own collective workload and neatly circumventing the need to involve the women in any kind of meaningful decision making.
"this is not about fairness ... it's about the quality of our political, financial and business institutions
they're a disgrace at present and this is the best way to fix them"
- Sagamix
A gaggle of women being fast-tracked into positions without having to compete with 50% of the potential candidates is the best solution, is it? Tell me, considering the fact that the whole "women offer a unique perspective" thing holds about as much water as a pair of whale-net stockings, what magic will women in particular be able to offer that will amazingly sort this whole mess out?
The answer is that a woman can offer nothing that a man of comparable intellect and ingenuity cannot also offer, so as ever it should come down to who, out of ALL candidates involved has the greatest capacity to do the job at hand. Female-only shortlists destroy that concept just as thoroughly, as chauvinist directors not giving women the positions they deserve because of their sex do.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
jr @ 131
you have to establish some facts to show that there is something deficient in what Cameron has done
he's worth £30m - okay okay "nothing like that" is his mantra, so let's say £25m
the obvious way for such a person to buy a fairly modest house is outright
but he took out a mortgage
the amount was such as to generate the maximum allowable claim
how's that?"
Firstly I have no idea if Cameron is worth £25 million and neither do you, secondly if someone is "worth" something that isn't the same as having savings of the same value.
It is perfectly possible for someone to be worth millions but actually have a small bank account (when someone is "worth" something that includes the value of their house, shares etc.) so if someone doesn't have the cash in the bank he has to either sell assets or take out a mortgage.
Going back to Cameron - why should he have to (potentially) sell assets (which he might not even own solely) when there is an allowance available that allows him to expense mortgage interest.
Complain about this comment
189. At 00:23am on 21 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
mr perry @ 183
okay JR, that is kind of Direct Testimony and so I of course accept all of it - but I'm not a fan of real world experience informing political policy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So, like gordon, you prefer to not let reality get in the way of whatever cloud cuckoo land ideology you choose to believe.
No wonder those of us who live in the real world despair...
Complain about this comment
"197. At 08:38am on 21 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
andy @ 194
STILL waiting to learn what it is you do (if anything) for a living
fair question - I guess I'd say my principal occupation is exploding the reactionary myths and fallacies peddled by the likes of your good self - the pay isn't great but there IS a fair degree of job satisfaction"
So a fair guess would be that you don't actually DO anything? I recall your "net contribution/net taker" from society argument. Seems like you are a net taker.
Must be easy. Sat there, doing nothing, relying on other people's hard work & taxes to live on. I wonder which would be a better society. One in which everyone did what you do (i.e. nothing) or one in which everyone worked.
Complain about this comment
Like most people on this blog I strongly disagree with Cam on this. Calling it "positive action" is pure sophistry - it is nothing more or less than discimination on grounds of gender.
Of course our govt changed the rules so they are allowed to discriminate but we in the real world are not - yet another example of one rule for the MPs and a different rule for everyone else.
It is about time MPs understood they are our servants not our masters.
If any local Conservative party gets given an all women candidate list because of "positive action" by central office I suggest that they simply refuse to endorse any candidate or even speak to them and if necessary refuse to put up a candidate at the next election until such time as Conservative central office gets the message
Complain about this comment
andy @ 206
I recall your "net contribution/net taker" from society argument. Seems like you are a net taker
you may well "recall" it, Andy, but you clearly didn't fully grasp it (it's okay, you're not the only one!)
quick reprise:
a person's "worth" equals the true economic value (TEV) of the work they do minus the net pay (NP) they extract for doing it
(this is a material analysis obviously ... nothing to do with one's worth in other ways, which are many and varied)
right, so me ... my NP is ZERO
and my TEV (annualised basis) is let's say £2,000 ... that's £1,500 for all the exploding of reactionary myths and fallacies that I do (my main job) plus £500 for the organic vegetables I grow out back (sideline)
so I'm worth £2,000
now YOU ...
your NP is (I'm guessing) something like £200,000
and your TEV as a Tax "Advisor" is (I'm feeling generous today) £199,000
so you're worth £1,000!
half as much as me, which is not too shabby
Complain about this comment
@ 204
going back to Mortimax
I'd love to Mark, believe me I would, but I'm not allowed
Complain about this comment
sweet @ 205
you prefer to not let reality get in the way of whatever cloud cuckoo land ideology you choose to believe
interesting that you describe a coherent "all hangs together" political creed such as Clear Thinking Progressiveness as "cloud cuckoo land"
Complain about this comment
Benjy @ 203
a gaggle of women being fast tracked into senior positions without having to compete with 50% of the potential candidates is the best solution, is it?
a gaggle! ... telling choice of word, I must say
anyway, no, that's NOT what I'm saying - quite the opposite
what I'm saying is we need to be getting equal(ish) numbers going in and then competing for the top jobs - that will end the current "soft promotions for women" problem (the "patronising" point) and will make it more likely that the best people (male or female) come through - better for everyone - fairer AND raised standards in one fell swoop! - we all win
let's take the House of Commons - what'd be good is if we have one half of the seats for women and the other half for men - so we get 325 male and 325 female MPs - not only All Women, but All Men short lists too - the best people (of either gender) are then more likely to end up in senior ministerial positions
does it matter that one town will always have a woman MP whilst the one down the road has a bloke? - no it doesn't because gender has now become irrelevant! - that's the beauty of this, do you see? - this is where we need to get to, isn't it?
kind of like a pool game - 7 spots and 7 stripes and you HAVE to have 7 of each, else the whole game suffers ... doesn't work at all really
but (here's the MP gender analogy!) does it matter to the player whether he or she is on spots or stripes - NO
surely you see now?
Complain about this comment
Could you please explain why the Have your say archive content on 'should the BNP be on question time' has been blanked out ?
We live in a democracy - or so I am led to believe.
Complain about this comment
jr @ 201
I'd say the main issue (as regards a typical City trading floor) is the culture - it's very macho - extremely Y chrome led
the people there see it (as I once did) as more of a Heist than a Job
and we've seen what that leads to, haven't we?
you'll probably think I'm kidding when I say it's this (far more than the minutae of the regulatory regime) which caused the credit crunch
but I'm not
Complain about this comment
@ 208
sorry Andy, typo there!
you're worth MINUS £1,000 (per annum) is what the numbers say, don't they?
but we can stick to the first answer since it's probably fairer on you
Complain about this comment
#208
And still, no admission of what it is you actually do.
embarressed about it? Or the lack of 'it'?
You ought to try working. You know, NOT having other people subsidise your lifestyle. It's liberating.
Complain about this comment
206/208#
Oh Christ Andy, dont start him off on that EV crap again, please!
I note that he hasnt responded to my deduction at 199.... yet....
Complain about this comment
#211
Thing is, should you not be talking to women about this? they've had the vote for around 90 years. Nothing to stop them standing, nothing to stop them voting for each other.
I dunno, maybe they don't WANT to get involved in politics? Maybe they don't WANT to get involved in business. It's a theory. Possibly as likely as "it's all a male conspiracy".
Next time you pop down the jobcentre, have a chat with some women, see what they think.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS