Calls for all-woman shortlisting rejected by Tory leadership hopefuls
Britain has slipped ignominiously out of the top 50 nations for women’s political representation, strengthening calls for all-woman shortlisting (AWS).
All political parties have had the option to use AWS following the the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, but only Labour has taken this up. Consequently, 77 per cent of female MPs are from the Labour party.
High levels of female and other descriptive elected representation are associated with reduced corruption, reduced bureaucracy, and spending priorities reflective of the community being represented. So why have Davids Cameron and Davis refused to consider AWS when outlining their visions of the future of the Conservative party?
The oft-cited defense to Tory failures to institute AWS is ‘meritocracy’. It is fondly imagined by the phalanx of grey-suited Tory MPs that they have attained their seats in government and opposition on the basis of their raw talents, rather than by the grace of a selection process that thwarts their kitten-heeled sisters at every turn. It is difficult to explain to someone who is holding the reins of power that this may, in part, be because of the contents of his pants rather than his character.
Of course, this delusion about ‘meritocracy’ is not confined to male Tories. A letter to the Telegraph from a number of women Tory activists contained this piece of received wisdom:
Meritocracy is one of the principles of Conservatism. How can we Conservatives persuade the electorate that we believe in freedom, devolving power to the lowest possible level and opposing political correctness, when the party runs its own internal affairs in exactly the opposite way?
A genuine political meritocracy would be representative of the general population, because it would include people from all genders and communites and would exclude only those without merit. It would not recruit only those with access to informal, male-dominated networks. It would not exclude those with caring responsibilities, or who weren’t heterosexual. It wouldn’t make comments about being a “normal, family man” when promoting one candidate over another.
A more pertinent question to those Conservatives who invoke the rhetoric of meritocracy might inquire how they are going to deliver meritocracy to the UK, when they can’t deliver it within their own party?
A few drunken (and thusly not entirely seriously meant) thoughts to avoid doing the work I really, really should be doing:
Political parties exist to get into power – as such, the Tories would be absolutely insane to throw away the votes of 50% of the population, and they know it.
This, if nothing else, is some kind of indication that their argument is more complex than merely “we’re meritocratic” – they also don’t see all-women shortlists as a valuable electoral strategy.
Admittedly, they may have got up their own arses a bit thanks to being the only party to have given us a female Prime Minister (or, indeed, leader – bar Margaret Beckett’s brief stint after John Smith’s death), but nonetheless, any party worth its salt knows that you need female votes to get elected. If having more female candidates was considered to be that much of a bonus, they’d do it.
As it is, there is no proven electoral benefit to all-women shortlists – in fact, local constituency associations have often objected strongly to the party bigwigs forcing such things on them (viz Peter Law in Blaenau Gwent), so that they may be considered to do more harm than good in terms of electoral success.
Labour seem to think it’s beneficial to their electoral chances (if not in Blaenau Gwent), but their core vote is rather different to that of the Tories, which is rather more old-fashioned – even the women can be inclined to feel that women have no place in politics (my dear mother, occasionally, being a prime example).
Yes, it may be nice if everyone was represented in the Commons according to their respective makeup of the population. Sadly, however, that’s not how our current political system works. In fact, pretty much the only way to get minority groups (and women, who I belive are actually in the majority in the UK) represented in line with their respecive populations in the current system without pissing off large chunks of the rest of the electorate is some kind of strictly-regimented nationwide segregation scheme, and do it on a constituency by constituency basis.
If having more female candidates was considered to be that much of a bonus, they’d do it.
You would think, wouldn’t you? However, that’s not really the way equalities works.
Research done by the DTI suggests that companies that have flexible working policies have better retention rates, increase morale within their workforce, and greater productivity. All of these things contribute to the bottom line.
The EOC makes similar claims for companies that have conducted an equal pay review.
Catalyst has conducted research which indicates a link between female representation on the board of Fortune 500 companies, and their financial performance.
Despite a wealth of evidence that it would be of direct benefit to business, women are still not being enabled to make it through the glass ceiling.
I have no doubt that a similar situation persists in politic, where the ‘feelings’ of the respective parties about what the electorate will stomach [and who said that it was just women who run on intuition, rather than facts?] are dislocated from the evidence base.
To add to what NM says… my guess is that you’d probably lose 3 core voters in disgust at ‘tokenism’ (etc) for every 1 swing voter you might win over for being progressive. For better and/or worse, the lack of women isn’t a priority issue for most voters – that isn’t to say they won’t lament it; just that they won’t do a lot to see it changed.
“It is fondly imagined by the phalanx of grey-suited Tory MPs that they have attained their seats in government and opposition on the basis of their raw talents, rather than by the grace of a selection process that thwarts their kitten-heeled sisters at every turn.”
This is a really important point and it is not just limited to candidate selection of political parties, it cuts right across all areas of our society – race, poverty, share of power etc..
To have a true ‘meritocracy’ you need a level playing field. This has to take account of ‘inertia problems’, as well as having rules that are open and fair.
By ‘inertia problems’ I refer to things like the natural discouragement to sections of society to join a group where they are going to be in a very small minority and the ‘sometimes hidden’ resistance of the dominant group that discourage people ‘not like them’ from joining. Sometimes this discouragement is entirely accidental and not even noticed by those carrying it out.
I would imagine that Tories like Blimpish and Nosemonkey see nothing in the present selection process that is a barrier to women candidates or they feel that hidden barriers of inertia are unimportant as long as the rules are seen as open and fair on paper.
Reading through Blimpish and Nosemonkey’s blogs, it becomes apparent this ideology runs right through their attitude to most policy areas. Their use of the term meritocracy and the free market usually means nothing of the sort. It is actually just a useful cover for maintaining or enhancing the dominance of the rich and powerful over the rest. They are not really talking about meritocracy at all.
Without positive discrimination like AWS, change is going to be painfully slow. The Tories have only 9% of their MPs who are women compared to Labour’s 27% of their MPs. Unless you believe this massive under-representation of women in Parliament is down to some sort of inherent disinterest in the levers of power, or that women are just somehow ‘inferior’ when it comes to political competency, there is quite clearly something preventing them from becoming MPs.
Of course positive discrimination like AWS is treating the symptom not the problem and can be grossly unfair. The best candidates are sometimes overlooked and discriminated against. This of course is wrong.
So what is the actual problem? What is holding women back and how do we solve it.
Well the first way to solve things is to change to an electoral system that is more representative of the whole population. This is obviously something we should do anyway, it is not just women that are grossly under-represented with our current system, but also ethnic minorities and the working class. Looking at countries that have proportional representation we could more than double our number of women MP’s straightaway. This is why the Scottish Parliament has 40% female representation and the Welsh Assembly 50%.
It shows that once the initial inertia problem is overcome, the walls come tumbling down.
GenderGeek may well be correct in saying that having more women MPs is correlated with lower corruption and other desirable outcomes. But correlation isn’t causation, and there are 4 possibilities here:
1. the correlation is a coincidence
2. more women MPs causes less corruption
3. less ccorruption causes more women MPs
4. some other factor, X, causes both more woemn MPs and less ccorruption
It’s not obvious to me which of these is the case.
If “descriptive representation” (i.e. people being represented by representatives woh a demographically similar to them) is important, the most effective way to achive it wouldn’t be all-women shortlists, since they only track one aspect of demographic description, but to have people chosen at random from the electoral roll. I think that descriptive preresenation has a place in a society’s governing institutions and would support such “people’s peers” in the House of Lords.
Nosemoneky and Blimpish are almost certainly right in that AWS would not impriove the Tories’ electoral chances; instead it’d be more likely to cause a few more Blaenau Gwents 9which incidently suggests there is little public demand for AWS).
Neil is also probably right that proportional represenation would lead to more female MPs. I support PR, but not for this reason — I support it because it would lead to MPs being elected whose political beliefs are more in line with the voters than is the case undewr the present system. And what MPs believe is more important to me than the shape of their genitals.
The claim that “Meritocracy is one of the principles of Conservatism” is untrue, it’s one of the self-deluding lies that Tories tell each other. If Tories really believed in meritocracy, they’d favour increasing inheritance tax in order to reduce tax on earned income.
Eh?
Ooooh! I’m a Tory today, am I? Excellent! I was a “progressive lefty” the day before yesterday. Must be having a Tony Blair style shift of opinions in the course of a week. I’ll be declaring war on someone next, you mark my words…
Back to the point, one obvious question is how many women actually WANT to go into politics?
Take the UK political blog world, which anyone can enter at no cost and usually (even if it does take a few months) does work on a loosely meritocratic basis. 90% (at least) of political bloggers are male.
So, could it be that women simply aren’t interested in politics? Possibly politically incorrect to say, but there are certain attitude differences between the sexes – this could just be one of them.
A tale to tell:
1976, my mother and father, recently moved to the North East. Young, enthusiastic, Labour Party members. Meet the local party, offering their support and involvement. Prominent member of local party, the words of my mother, looked straight past her and asked my father if he’d like to be a candidate for the local council. And thus they were lost the the Labour Party. 30 years ago, yes, but to my knowledge, prominent member is still a prominent member.
We mght wish to deny it, but direct, deliberate and conscious sex discrimination does still exist, as well as the unconscious, institutional and indirect discrimination that we all agonise over.
Anyone who disagrees with Neil Harding is a ‘Tory’, it seems. He seems to think it an insult…
The reason that we Tories don’t want all-women shortlists is because it is patronising tokenism, and doesn’t address the underlying and fundamental problems, which are largely cultural, and are probably now fixed. The reason that we don’t have many female MPs is thus historical, and I expect it will even out naturally given more time. Of course, I realise that’s not an acceptable position to take for the ‘every battle, however petty, must be fought and won right now’ radical feminists, but we aren’t courting your vote, so you can pretty much go jump. I don’t think that your average woman on the street really cares about this over and above other more important issues. Given that we had a majority of the female vote up to 1997, I expect we can regain that, given a little policy work and proper marketing, but I don’t expect that it will be done by giving people jobs purely because they are women.
The other point is that MPs are not there to represent their own gender, race, community, etc. They are there to represent their constituents. If I were to suggest, for example, that my own (female) Tory MP were unable to represent me adequately because she doesn’t understand “men’s issues”, like paternity leave, access to children after divorce, and suchlike, I would be roundly condemned by the same people seeking to use this sort of reasoning for getting more women into parliament. To miss this point is to fail to understand representative democracy.
A genuine political meritocracy would be representative of the general population, because it would include people from all genders and communites and would exclude only those without merit.
No-one is saying that we have a genuine political meritocracy yet, just that it is something to strive towards. I’d be interested though in your views as to which communities should be excluded from political life because they lack merit? Neil Harding wants the BNP to be given seats in parliament. Do you agree with him?
It would not recruit only those with access to informal, male-dominated networks.
This is all a bit vague, isn’t it? What do you mean by ‘informal, male-dominated networks.’ My impression of most Conservative constituency organisations is that they are heavily female-dominated. If anything, the Labour party is worse here. They just cover up their inherent sexist bias with the tokenism of AWS, and you think that’s a victory?
It would not exclude those with caring responsibilities, or who weren’t heterosexual.
Nice piece of moving the goalposts, there. There are plenty of non-heterosexual MPs in the Tory party, and there are plenty of non-heterosexual PPCs, and there are plenty of non-heterosexual activists. Lumping your own issues in with someone else’s because you see a superficial similarity does you no favours at all.
‘Despite a wealth of evidence that it would be of direct benefit to business, women are still not being enabled to make it through the glass ceiling.’
Why do you need ‘enabling’? I know plenty of women who have made it to some very lofty positions in my own industry. Don’t you think it insulting to those who have made it that those who can’t need to be given a leg up?
Apologies for the tone, here, reading back over this. All this positive discrimination stuff makes me gag. To lighten the tone, and set myself up as a sexist right-wing caricature that you can shoot at, I think Nosemonkey is right here:
‘So, could it be that women simply aren’t interested in politics? Possibly politically incorrect to say, but there are certain attitude differences between the sexes – this could just be one of them.’
There is something very male about political blogging. I think it appeals to our over-inflated sense of self-importance – the arrogant belief that what we are saying is either interesting to other people or can make a difference. The House of Commons is similar – an individual MP essentially has pretty close to zero power and influence. I think women generally are more sensible, and have better things to do with their time…
Bugger. Forgot the last tag. The last paragraph is mine.
My reluctance to an aws is basically that we shouldn’t have to use affirmative action (or positive discrimination, depending whether you’re American or French) to get a more representative democracy. Either way that you do it, discrimination makes my nose wrinkle. If you’re looking for perfect proportions random selection on these criteria makes more sense.
I don’t doubt that women are qualified and motivated to get into politics, and I don’t doubt that especially among the Conservative party there’s a fair whack of headpatting and PR roles and suchlike, but an AWS should be a last resort, not a primary line of defense. I’d like to see different sets of incentives to women to get them into political candidacy before I’ll admit that an AWS is the only way to get them elected.
PS Of course, there’s the other possibility that women are too smart to expose themselves to the public scrutiny and varications of a whimsical electorate: much craftier and subtler than men, we see there is more longevity and anonymity and scope for power in being the voice whispering into the politicians’ ears from the shadows.
Speaking as a fairly radical feminist, whom Andrew seems to think he knows, I am not in favour of AWS. I think it is a sticking plaster for a gaping wound. At best it deals with symptoms, not the underlying causes, and does a pretty shoddy job at that (pointing out the fact that 77% of female MP’s are from the Labour Party nicely obscures the fact that the proportion of Labour MP’s is still pretty low).
Furthermore, it pisses people off, and that is never a good thing when you are trying to change people’s perception of something.
It is nice for the Labour Party to be able to point to AWS and say what a good job they are doing, so possibly that is why they are so in favour of it.
“High levels of female and other descriptive elected representation are associated with reduced corruption, reduced bureaucracy, and spending priorities reflective of the community being represented.”
Yes, and high levels of pale-skinned people in government are associated with lower corruption, more concern for human rights and stronger economies. Correlation/causation.
Katherine: Never thought I’d see the day, but we seem to agree on something. Let the choir of angels sing, etc…
“Why do you need ‘enabling’?”
Well, the simple point is this; the proportion of women in parliament does not reflect their numbers in society. If we hold that our democracy is a legitimate expression of the people it represents then we must ask why. There are two options, roughly speaking.
That the obstacles are ‘external’ to individual women, that the structure of our society (widely considered or narrowly considered as the social world of politics) prevents women, or enables men, to get ahead in politics. If this is the case then we must work to redress this balance. In the narrow sense, is it something to do with our practice of politics, the way we organise our political parties and the way we work as politicians? In the wider sense is it something to do with the cultural expectations held of women and by women or with the sort of career paths women and men are enculturated to pursue? And on. We might not be able to correct these, but what we can do is work to mitigate the effects these have on obstacles to the representation of women in politics. This is a democractic imperative.
The other option is that the obstacle is internal to women; that something in their biology prevents them from becoming an MP. I don’t give the idea of biological differences making women intrinsically less able at the art of politics any real credence, but in fact, if this was the case, so long as you are a democrat the case for ‘enabling’ women to enter politics is far more clear cut than ascribing a social cause. Democracy is about representation. If there were biological differences between men and women then it would be imperative that women sat in parliament representing their own, biologically-different interests from the of men. I think that the idea of significant biological differences with regard to politics is utter hogwash, but even if you are of that stripe, so long as you are a democract then you ought agree with the ‘enabling’ of women candidates.
Regardless of what is the cause of the low representation of women in politics it is the democratic imperative to ensure proper representation of women in parliament (and other institutions). And we need not know the cause to devise measures of enabling (though it does help create anabling tools of greater subtlety than AWS and to target the social and cultural causes at their source, where they affect many other areas of life, rather than at their symptoms).
If you do not think that there is a cause then you are an arrational unreasonablist.
Regardless of what is the cause of the low representation of women in politics it is the democratic imperative to ensure proper representation of women in parliament (and other institutions).
Why?
Of course, all this is based on the assumption that our representatives need to resemble us physically, whereas the point of a representative democracy is that we vote for people who resemble us politically. Why – really – does it matter what colour their skin is, or whether they have a penis, as long as we agree with them on the political issues that are important to us and can trust them to represent and vote for our interests?
If women are just as capable as men, why does it matter if a man – who is just as capable as a woman – is a woman’s representative in parliament, or vice-versa? Not only would forcing through AWS to get more female MPs risk seeming patronising towards women, it could be seen as an indication that men are considered to be incapable of understanding womens’ interests – which would imply that women have different interests from men, and take us round and round in circles ad infinitum.
Sorry, the point I was driving at was this; if women simply ARE different, then democratically they need representation. If they ARE NOT different, then their lack of representation is a pointer to wider inequalities that ought be mitaigated if we want a democratic society.
Ah, but if (a big “if”) they’re different in that they have no interest in politics, then forcing them to participate more in politics would then either a) force the removal of that difference, thus making the forced participation no longer valid as a tactic or b) lead to an exaggeration of what may be (a big “may be”) the current situation, whereby it is largely women not representative of women as a whole (i.e. women with an interest in politics) who end up in politics. Additionally, if you somehow manage to get women who aren’t interested in politics actively participating in politics, you would arguably have to do the same for men, or they would be unfairly represented only by those men who are actively interested in participating in politics. In other words, only non-politicians would be allowed to become politicians.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that if we accept the premise that women simply ARE different in some way (which I’m not sure any of us necessarily do), then the only way to get them actively participating in politics in numbers proportionate to their percentage of the population is through entirely undemocratic means. You’d have to basically instigate a semi-random nationwide lottery to decide our parliamentary representatives which would give us 50% men, 50% women, and each of those subdivisions broken down into x% Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Black, White, Chinese, Asian, Gay, Straight etc. etc. etc. Otherwise it simply wouldn’t be fair.
It would be more directly representative, but it wouldn’t be democratic. Which is largely why I’m against all-women shortlists, I suppose.
Neil, for shits and giggles and not because I take you seriously,
“I would imagine that Tories like Blimpish and Nosemonkey see nothing in the present selection process that is a barrier to women candidates or they feel that hidden barriers of inertia are unimportant as long as the rules are seen as open and fair on paper.”
Now, at least you marked me right here, unlike NM. I don’t, though, subscribe to the rest of it – I think that there are always constraints formed by institutional and cultural context that frustrate justice in all its forms. It’s just that I’m not wary of seeking perfection, and often times think that we should hold on to the good that we have. There’s a big difference, which I’d explain to you if I thought it would be any more productive than banging my head against a brickwall.
As for the next bit:
“Reading through Blimpish and Nosemonkey’s blogs, it becomes apparent this ideology runs right through their attitude to most policy areas. Their use of the term meritocracy and the free market usually means nothing of the sort. It is actually just a useful cover for maintaining or enhancing the dominance of the rich and powerful over the rest. They are not really talking about meritocracy at all.”
I’m sure that this isn’t be the case for NM, but this is rubbish for mine. Although I am a free market man, I’m far from unsceptical, unjaded, etc. Equally, I’m not convinced that meritocratic is somehow equivalent to justice; and so I’d like you to give examples where I suggest anything of the sort. I certainly don’t use it as a cover for maintaining or enhancing the dominance of the establishment.
Why am I so sure I don’t use it as a cover for that? Because I’m quite happy to argue for that openly.
So, shut it, Harding.
Jesus, don’t you people work?
And what MPs believe is more important to me than the shape of their genitals.
And to me, also. Which is why I don’t just vote for any vagina-bearer on the ballot.
Back to the point, one obvious question is how many women actually WANT to go into politics?
Perhaps the gender balance of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly goes some way to answering that question?
Take the UK political blog world, which anyone can enter at no cost and usually (even if it does take a few months) does work on a loosely meritocratic basis. 90% (at least) of political bloggers are male.
I don’t have time to rake through those who self-identify as ‘political bloggers’ in the BritBlog listings and count up gender, although that would presumably be a narrow-ish sample that may be skewed in all kinds of ways. Not least that fact that ‘political’ often signifies a narrower range of concerns than I would consider political. I think, for example, that my blog is political, even though it is solely about gender and infrequently mentions party-politics.
There has been certainly been a lot of controversy in the US poliblog world about gender and the linking habits of A-listers like Kos and Instapundit, of the Technorati 100, and NZBear’s ecosystem.
The reason that we Tories don’t want all-women shortlists is because it is patronising tokenism, and doesn’t address the underlying and fundamental problems, which are largely cultural, and are probably now fixed.
Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that the ‘cultural’ problems which comprise gender discrimination are ‘probably fixed’. I agree with all of the posters who have said that AWS is not a holistic solution to the discrimination against women in politics. However, AWS is not about taking incompetent women and promoting them above their talents and abilities. It is about recognising that their talents and abilities are not all that is required to succeed, and removing some of the barriers to that success.
If I were to suggest, for example, that my own (female) Tory MP were unable to represent me adequately because she doesn’t understand “men’s issuesâ€Â, like paternity leave, access to children after divorce, and suchlike, I would be roundly condemned by the same people seeking to use this sort of reasoning for getting more women into parliament. To miss this point is to fail to understand representative democracy.
“Men’s issues” are GENDER issues. Which is why Duncan Fisher, Director of Fathers Direct, is an EOC Commissioner. I am not suggesting for a second that every MP has to be a woman in order for gender mainstreaming to occur. I am not even saying that female representatives will be inherently interested in gender issues. What I am saying is that when elected representatives and civil servants are drawn from a broad range of backgrounds (and in the case of gender: both of them) then it is more likely that legislation and policy will reflect the needs of the whole population.
Why do you need ‘enabling’? I know plenty of women who have made it to some very lofty positions in my own industry. Don’t you think it insulting to those who have made it that those who can’t need to be given a leg up?
It would be insulting if the reason for women’s success or lack of it entirely rested on their personal capabilities. It doesn’t.
Is it insulting to men that they are so prevalent in senior positions because the odds against women getting there are so high?
Why – really – does it matter what colour their skin is, or whether they have a penis, as long as we agree with them on the political issues that are important to us and can trust them to represent and vote for our interests?
It shouldn’t. It should be that all politicians and civil servants have an understanding of the gendered impact of legislation and policy. They don’t.
Women have a different experience of life than men do. Women have the primary responsibility for caring for children, the sick, and older people. Women have babies. Women have different healthcare needs from men. Women have different requirements of public transport. Women use public spaces differently, and experience different types of crime in different ways. This may be stating the bloody obvious, but it has taken a looooong time for many of the above to be recognised by those responsible who legislate and make policy.
Although women entering the House of Commons may not be feminists, or even particularly gender aware, they will know what it is to be a woman.
This may seem trivial, but when the next Prime Minister flat-out refuses to talk about tampons, presumably because women’s bodies are so icky, then I think there is definitely a need for them!
This is going to piss people off. And I’ll be honest and say that is possibly why I’m mentioning it. If a woman has a normal job and gives birth, someone else can be appointed to do her job while she’s away. If a woman MP gives birth her constituents are disenfranchised. Is this something we should worry about?
And Sex Discrimination would normally be illegal. Why should we support the Sex Discrimination (It’s Okay If Labour Do It) Act 2002?
James, what you say makes logical sense, indeed. I personally feel that things like legal obligation to supply maternity pay and leave makes women more expensive to hire and therefore more likely to be rejected in favour of a man when applying for a job. But in all honesty, what are you going to do? Ban maternity leave and pay? The only other option is to extend and compensate paternity leave to equalise things, which is silly and will exacerbate the cost of labour to a ridiculous amount. Cross reference ‘France.’ It’s basically an inequality we’ve got to live with.
The only other option is to extend and compensate paternity leave to equalise things, which is silly and will exacerbate the cost of labour to a ridiculous amount.
Tout au contraire. Another option is to enable couples to share mat/paternity leave between themselves.
I’m sorry, I’m rather late on this one; mainly, I think, that I couldn’t quite believe that people would be advocating discrimination over at The Sharpener.
Are there official All-Men Shortlists? No.
Are All-Women Shortlists discriminatory? Yes. If you are a man, you can’t stand, even if every voter in the constituency wants to elect you (unless you run as an independent, naturally).
And will The Sharpener be advocating All-Ethnic-Minority, All-Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Transexual, and All-Disabled Shortlists in the future?
DK
mainly, I think, that I couldn’t quite believe that people would be advocating discrimination over at The Sharpener
Don’t fret, DK. The Sharpener, en bloc, is certainly not taking cabinet responsibility for this one.
Don’t fret, DK. The Sharpener, en bloc, is certainly not taking cabinet responsibility for this one.
Yeah, but I will, at least on the principle of descriptive representation (within reasonable limits) as a goal of democracy.
Are there official All-Men Shortlists? No.
Correct. But still plenty of unofficial ones.
“However, AWS is not about taking incompetent women and promoting them above their talents and abilities. ”
Any form of positive discrimination means promoting some people above their capabilities – and people who are promoted above their capabilities perform below them. I think we can all name certain Labour MPs who’ve been brought in on the back of all-women shortlists and who’ve proved terrible.
Full time politicians are, by definition, completely unrepresentative of the population at large. It doesn’t mean they can’t perform their jobs effectively, which, as a voter, is the only thing that interests me.
To return to your original premise, there’s no reason for the Conservative Party to adopt a policy which has next to no support among the population at large, and might well blow up in their faces, as at Blaenau Gwent.
How can reduced corruption, reduced bureaucracy, and spending priorities reflective of the community being represented be linked to more women MPs when Labour have 77% and yet we have high levels of corruption, OK most are Blunkett, increased bueaucracy and spending as we want when we are spending billions on things that are useless. No wonder the other parties don’t want to do it if this data is used to justify it.
Dave, that’s easy: there are far fewer female MPs, so you have a far smaller sample pool.
Since it appears that it is far more difficult to become an MP is you are female, we can assume that those MPs who are are exceptionally good, efficient, honest or all three.
Therefore, the data from which the statistics are derived are skewed. No regular reader of Private Eye would ever suggest that women are inherently more competent or less corrupt than men.
And I’m sure that no one is suggesting that women are inherently better than men in any way. We wouldn’t want to be sexist now, would we?
DK
Phil: “And what MPs believe, is more important to me than the shape of their genitals.”
But the ‘shape of their genitals’ has an effect on what they believe. Women have different priorities and experiences. Women MPs are more likely to be interested in and focus policy on issues that are more relevant to women. Isn’t this important?
Nosemonkey: “So, could it be that women simply aren’t interested in politics?”
There are actually a fairly even number of male and female bloggers. Ninety percent of what you call ‘political blogs’ might be male run but you forget ‘politics’ is everything. Look at any female blog on any subject and you will find quite a lot of politics. Just because they don’t give it that specific label misses the point.
It’s not surprising women aren’t interested in the macho games of ‘party politics’ or of even using the specific label of politics, this is because they are so excluded from it by the ‘style’ and ‘focus’ of this male dominated sphere.
Get 50% female representation in parliament and watch this style and focus change and as a result more women will become interested. Until we get over this ‘inertia problem’, things will never change and the different experiences and priorities of women will be lost.
Sorry I called you a Tory if you are not. It is most definitely an insult in my book, when you look at their record in blocking or trying to block almost every progressive legislative move in the UK, including this one.
Andrew: “Neil Harding wants the BNP to be given seats in parliament.”
I like the way you put it Andrew.
If by having fair representation in parliament this means 1 or 2 BNP MPs, then that is the correct thing to have.
The reason I say this is because by driving BNP supporters underground, we don’t make their views go away. It is only by having their views confronted in parliament that people will see how ridiculous they are and stop voting for them.
Blimpish: “I’m quite happy to argue for [the dominance of the establishment] openly.”
I’ll give you credit, Blimpish, at least you are open about not wanting a democracy, which is probably why you want me to shut up. Like Stalin and Hitler before you, you know what you need to do.
‘The reason I say this is because by driving BNP supporters underground, we don’t make their views go away. It is only by having their views confronted in parliament that people will see how ridiculous they are and stop voting for them.’
Just like in France, where Le Pen’s party has withered away and completely died in the face of popular scrutiny…
It’s a lovely platitude, but it doesn’t work in practice, does it?
‘It’s not surprising women aren’t interested in the macho games of ‘party politics’ or of even using the specific label of politics, this is because they are so excluded from it by the ’style’ and ‘focus’ of this male dominated sphere.’
That’s incredibly patronising of you, Neil, to suggest that women can’t cope with party politics. Maybe they shouldn’t worry their pretty little heads about it in your world, huh?
‘Like Stalin and Hitler before you, you know what you need to do.’
You’re the one calling for fascist parties to be in parliament, not Blimpish.
Andrew: “Just like in France, where Le Pen’s party has withered away and completely died in the face of popular scrutiny…”
Obviously there are factors other than the electoral system. France has a majoritarian system like ours, it hasn’t stopped the rise of the far right has it?
“to suggest that women can’t cope with party politics.”
You know that I never said anything of the sort. I said that women are discouraged from party politics and that the macho image doesn’t help attract them to it.
I said that women are discouraged from party politics and that the macho image doesn’t help attract them to it.
So women can’t hack it when people start raising their voices? Or women can’t cope with conflict and disagreement? I had no idea you were such an unreconstructed sexist, Neil, especially given the force of all of your other right-on opinions.
This post has been featured in the Carnival of Feminists at
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2005/12/holly_at_self_p.html