Of course their web audience is overwhelmingly male

Unlike LC of course!!

Just remind me again . . . wasn’t it a 27 year old WOMAN who has just become the youngest MP in the HofC?

And isn’t that young WOMAN . . . a CONSERVATIVE MP now?

Are you serious? Do you really think that Labour – who have totally failed to reform Parliament from a minority perspective over the last 12 years – should start a debate about getting more minorities into Parliament? What a ridiculous idea.

The Conservatives are likely to massively increase their female MP numbers next year even if they don’t win an overall majority, and most of Blair’s 1997 female intake will probably be wiped out in 2010 – leaving Labour with their socialist ‘old guard’ (mostly white males) behind.

The thing is that Harriet Harman was absolutely and utterly wrong. And I say this not as a white male with a spurious sense of victimhood but as somebody who believes in *politics*.

Harriet justified her case by saying that ““Men cannot be left to run things on their own” and that “a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions”. Such comments make personal characteristics and ‘decision-making abilities’ central to the question of who should lead labour. In this regard, they effectively depoloticise a deeply political question.

John Prescott is right to argue that ‘You can’t dictate equality in leadership elections. You must let the party decide’. Quite simply, the question of who should lead labour is too important – to subordinate the political will of its members to rules and regs. If a mixed leadership is best for labour, then the membership will have every opportunity to accept this principle and to allow it to inform their voting behaviour.

I agree Harman’s ideas should be looked into.

But I am a bit worried that we seem to be couching everything in terms of ‘exposing’ or ‘embarrassing’ Cameron though – See also the Observer story (and Neal Lawson comment piece) last week about a referendum on PR.

That smacks of desperation and is not popular with voters. I think we need to be more positive.

Dear Sunny. A debate on sexism in politics would be a very good thing, It could cover such areas of public concern as Harriet Harman’s latest ideas on, “equality”, the institutionalised bias against men in Primary Education and paediatrics, and whether it is reasonable to expect a 50/50 split of gender in a short list when the candidate list provided by a Party HQ is split 44 to 8 by gender.

The debate could also include the significance and outcomes of the appointment by the Tory Party of a woman chosen by ability to lead the Party30 years ago, in comparison with the enforced promotion of women by quota in the Labour Party. You probably don’t need to be reminded that the Tories had appointed an member of an ethnic minority group to be Leader and PM before the Labour Party was even formed.

Maybe the reason the Tory party members rejected the idea of gender based short-lists is because they are fundamentally unfair and just plain daft.

It seems weird that it is the left that is supporting a policy which is basically a return to Edwardian concepts of promotion based not on ability, but on birthright.

I thought we had moved beyond a society that believed in “jobs for the boys”, or “jobs for the girls” as it seems, to one that appoints people based on their ability to do their job.

Then again, politics is rarely about who can do the job best, and who can sound the best when a microphone is stuck under their nose. Maybe that is what needs to change?

All these attempts to ‘put the Tories on the backfoot’ don’t seem to be working very well. Harman’s comments have simply exposed yet more fault lines within Labour. You seem to be saying that Prescott (or indeed any other Labour politicians) should have kept their mouths shut despite the fact that what Harman is saying is deeply unpopular. I think the Labour Party should follow your advice, Sunny.

So you’d have no problem with a woman getting a job over you simply because she is a woman, and she might well be worse at the job than you?

There is a reason that 91% rejected the 50/50 shortlists, and it’s nothing to do with sexism. If a person has what it takes to make the shortlist then they will, whether they are a woman or a man.

Just remind me again . . . wasn’t it a 27 year old WOMAN who has just become the youngest MP in the HofC?

And isn’t that young WOMAN . . . a CONSERVATIVE MP now?

Of course! You’re right, the Tories have elected ONE woman, gender ineqaulity solved we can all go home now and quit complaining.

Next up, how electing a black MP has resolved the 400 year old legacy of slavery and eradicated racism from our society overnight!

Leon – it was the Tories who abolished the slave trade in the Empire (and the Republicans who emancipated them in the US).

Entertaining to see that someone here thinks the question of perceived sexism in politics is a tool with which to put the Tories on the back foot. In other words it is a cynically targetted political footboall, not an issue deserving on its own merits.

And you wonder why Labour is dying on its feet…

It may have been the Tories (remember kids at this time there was no Labour party so let’s not get too tribal eh?) but no one in their right mind could argue it came about because of compassionate Conservatism. There’s a good few slaves which organised rebellions which had something to do with it also…

A debate on sexism in politics is fine but I don’t see any party political advantage for Labour here.

The Orator is right in that using this as a stick to beat Cameron with is tacky when it’s an issue we should be taking up anyway, on it’s own merits – even if it impacts on the lads club Labour has become again.

Harman’s idea is patently absurd, entirely unworkable and incredibly simplistic. It distracts everyone from the real issues of equality by tempting people with apparently simple solutions. There is no simple solution to equality, just one long push to keep making things more equal.

Just imagine if Harman is the next Labour PM and then, mid-term, the deputy leader resigns. Will Harman tell all the women in parliament that they are not allowed to stand for the post because they are women? I’d be quite happy with two women at the top, as much as I’m comfortable with two men, the issue is whether they are any good and have been put there through some democratic process.

Sunny:

In other words – it would make more sense for Labour to force a political debate on why parliament has remained white and male for so long. Then they should ask what the Tories plan to do about it and watch them squirm.

Well, they’ve had 12 years to do just that, and the best idea they had was the first – the all-women shortlists for safer seats – which (for all its problems) could be viewed as a deliberate short-term boost to get to ‘normalising’ diversity a bit quicker, after which (ideally) the legislation could be repealed. (See also the quotas allocated to women in emerging democracies?)

On the other hand, New Labour seem more concerned with counting the number of female faces on each side, thinking they’ve won the argument because they have more of them, and that anyone who challenges the simplistic nature of such an approach to feminism and equality is a howwid sexist bully. But then, New Labour’s lack of ideological rigour is nothing new – it’s what makes Cameron’s photo-op approach in Norwich North possible. It’s hard to see how Harman can make the Tories squirm if she argues about ‘men’ (while mysteriously exempting Brown) rather than sexism – but that means talking about ideology and power, which I’m increasingly convinced isn’t her strong point in this case because she keeps making the same flawed argument.

Well, they’ve had 12 years to do just that, and the best idea they had was the first – the all-women shortlists for safer seats – which (for all its problems) could be viewed as a deliberate short-term boost to get to ‘normalising’ diversity a bit quicker, after which (ideally) the legislation could be repealed. (See also the quotas allocated to women in emerging democracies?)

I support All Women Shortlists and they worked. I’d take them further.

I’m not supporting what Harman specifically says – but let’s keep having the debate and proposing other ways to make parliament representative.

But at least the left wants that debate. The Tories want to avoid it.

“The Orator is right in that using this as a stick to beat Cameron with is tacky when it’s an issue we should be taking up anyway, on it’s own merits – even if it impacts on the lads club Labour has become again.”

Totally agree. Bringing up gender equality as a way to ‘beat’ another political party undermines the fundamental importance of the issue, and smacks of sad desperation.

Sorry but HH can’t have it both ways.

Either men and women are of equal ability in their capacity to do the job or they are not.

If they have equal abilities how can it be that “better decisions” are reached by mixed teams? This is implying gender can be a factor in making good decisions.

And if that is the starting point we need a new debate. Most unfortunately she does not set much of a pace by installing and supporting Trevor Phillips as Equality Commissioner.

Maybe a woman might do that job better?

If a person has what it takes to make the shortlist then they will, whether they are a woman or a man.

Oh really? If that is the case then why does parliament and politics remain overwhelmingly male? Are women just not suited? Are they stupid, according to you? Would love to hear your thoughts.

“Oh really? If that is the case then why does parliament and politics remain overwhelmingly male? Are women just not suited? Are they stupid, according to you? Would love to hear your thoughts.”

The problem is the culture. I’m a married man with no kids and at this stage of life I wouldn’t dream of taking on the personal disruption associated with being an MP – just look at the personal lives of most Birmingham MPs – they look like a car crash. Of politically minded people (of which any amount of time on political websites will inform you are mainly men) a greater proportion of women than men are likely to reject the Westminster lifestyle because of these issues. If family-friendly reforms were made (e.g. allowing MPs to vote remotely) you’d find big movement in the male-female ratios. Attempts to shoehorn more women into Parliament whilst these obstacles remain will do little for the equalities agenda – look at the amateurs in the Blair Babe intake.

When Dudley North was asked by the Conservative central party to shortlist 6 of the 8 female candidates and 6 of the 40 or so male candidates they were asking the association to accept second and third quartile females and reject top quartile male candidates. As Margaret Thatcher would say, no, no, no.

pagar:

If they have equal abilities how can it be that “better decisions” are reached by mixed teams? This is implying gender can be a factor in making good decisions.

A ‘society of all the talents’ would (I assume) be mixed and diverse: right-wingers who keep criticising Harman seem to forget that a gender-balanced Tory party would still be the Tory party. One can improve decision-making by hiring lots of smart people rather than assuming (as Harman often seems to) that hiring women will bring in some special insight that is a direct and exclusive result of their gender. Harman keeps confusing the pursuit of equality in the form of a ‘head count’ with a separate political debate about power and social justice for historically disenfranchised groups.

Might I add that Sunny’s assumption that those who oppose his ‘views’ are sexist/racist/insert as appropriate is breathtakingly stupid.

#18 Why isn’t having people with different life-experiences a factor in better decision-making?

praguetory:

The problem is the culture. I’m a married man with no kids and at this stage of life I wouldn’t dream of taking on the personal disruption associated with being an MP – just look at the personal lives of most Birmingham MPs – they look like a car crash. Of politically minded people (of which any amount of time on political websites will inform you are mainly men) a greater proportion of women than men are likely to reject the Westminster lifestyle because of these issues. If family-friendly reforms were made (e.g. allowing MPs to vote remotely) you’d find big movement in the male-female ratios. Attempts to shoehorn more women into Parliament whilst these obstacles remain will do little for the equalities agenda – look at the amateurs in the Blair Babe intake.

…which inevitably begs the question of the track record of Parliament (as a whole) let alone the two major parties (in particular) on ‘family-friendly reforms’ over the last few decades, as well as what they may have in mind for the future. (Incidentally, remote voting isn’t going to count for much if you want to participate in and respond to a debate in the chamber) And I’m not sure that women would have to wait until the reforms for the Commons were agreed: it doesn’t address the related problem of getting selected/elected in the first place, especially if part of a candidate’s platform was reforming the Commons.

Selections should be on merit – it’s too important to do it any other way. Let’s leave the elected part to the electorate !

Pagar: ‘If they have equal abilities how can it be that “better decisions” are reached by mixed teams? This is implying gender can be a factor in making good decisions.’

Its just implying a variety of viewpoints will be more democratic and representative as well as more capable.

A cabinet full of equally talented (or meritous) lawyers does not have the breadth of experience of a cabinet full of talented lawyers AND talented industrialists, etc. – nor does it have the legitimacy.

A cabinet full of white men does not have the breadth of experience as a cabinet of mixed genders and ethnic backgrounds, nor does it have the legitimacy.

tim f:

#18 Why isn’t having people with different life-experiences a factor in better decision-making?

It depends on whether simply being one gender or the other (transgender issues aside) counts as sufficiently different ‘life experience’.

praguetory:

Selections should be on merit – it’s too important to do it any other way. Let’s leave the elected part to the electorate !

Given this and your earlier post, there seems to be a problem: the selections should be based on merit, yet the potential to realise that is skewed because the workings of the House of Commons aren’t family-friendly enough to encourage meritworthy women to come forward, which in turn skews the results, if only in terms of the genders of candidates the electorate get to choose from (the policies those candidates stand on are a separate matter). So ‘something’ must be done to enable all those who are ‘meritworthy’ to shine, no?

The ideal candidate is a black Lesbian in a wheelchair.

On the other hand, the Harperson seems to be favourable to every possible minority; a person from the North of England [ideally a whippet-owner] with some metal in his left leg would score 5 + 5 = 10 points over a standard white male, right?

@ Shatterface

Its just implying a variety of viewpoints will be more democratic and representative as well as more capable.

No. It’s not. To say that better decisions are reached by teams of mixed gender is implying that gender is a determinant in how well someone in a team is likely to be helpful in making decisions.

A cabinet full of white men does not have the breadth of experience as a cabinet of mixed genders and ethnic backgrounds.

That depends. A randomly elected group of white men is likely to have a greater breadth of experience than, say, a group of Jamaican lesbian plumbers. My point is that suitability for election is based on factors other than gender and ethnicity- that such factors are not the least bit relevant in determining worth.

Please correct me if you do not agree with that. Nick Griffin doesn’t.

nor does it have the legitimacy.

In our current democratic system, legitimacy is conferred by the electorate, albeit in some cases following decisions by party grandees who influence the appointment of candidates.

But let’s not pretend all this is too important. Whether Chloe Smith is male, female or Martian is irrelevant. We all know that, in that God forsaken place, she’ll be nothing other than lobby fodder anyway.

‘Please correct me if you do not agree with that. Nick Griffin doesn’t.’

Jesus, I disagree with your simplistic analysis, therefore I’m a fascist?

Idiot.

My point is that suitability for election is based on factors other than gender and ethnicity- that such factors are not the least bit relevant in determining worth.

Sorry, not clear from your vituperative comment, Shatter.

Do you agree with the above or not?

The labour party’s deputy leader is pretty much a ceremonial post and is only as important as the Leader wants it to be — and it really only matters if the Party is in power.

While I agree that we need more women in politics — in Tony Blair’s Government — there were Margaret Beckett, Patricia Hewitt, Ruth Kelly, Idiot Harman, Hazel Blears, Yuvette cooper, Jacqui Smith.

And the party was led by two men — and they delivered 3 victories.

And what happened under the GB/HH leadership? Oh sorry – labour would get annihilated in the next election.

Harriet Harman is a power hungry dumb politician — everytime she opens her mouth she alienates the independents — most people reading LC would vote for labour probably anyways — the people outside of this bubble are far more concerned about other things.

And having a debate about this now would just bring back the headlines of the Times back into play — not very good politics. And it would look like navel gazing.

To say that better decisions are reached by teams of mixed gender is implying that gender is a determinant in how well someone in a team is likely to be helpful in making decisions.

Quite – I think some people have missed the irony here.

12: Leon; it’s going off topic, but I think your suggestion that slavery would somehow have got abolished anyway, is not historically backed by evidence.

Wilberforce and co may not have sit well under a ‘compassionate conservative’ heading -more like a compassionate christian one: but what they took many years to force through, cost British companies of the time a huge amount. Hence it was such a long battle, against deeply entrenched vested interests.

France and the USA had no equivalent champions of the cause, so kept slavery for much longer.

Its one episode in the history of the British empire where I think we can be rightly proud that we led the world in doing the right thing, despite the cost to us as a nation.

That doesn’t happen often in the real world.

Of course, as you say it was only Tories and Liberals at the time – Wilberforce tho independent, was on the conservative side.

But he also did a bunch of other socially radical things – like helping found the RSPCA etc.

Well, I was making a point about strategy not principle anyway – so much of the discussion has in fact missed my point.

That said: And the party was led by two men — and they delivered 3 victories.

And what happened under the GB/HH leadership? Oh sorry – labour would get annihilated in the next election.

That’s because GB is a rubbish leader. TB might have been intellectually vacuous but he knew political strategy. Nothing to do with the woman on the team.

PragueTory – don’t think you understand your own irony. By your own account the way parliament functions makes it difficult for women. You don’t want to talk about the sexism that women may face but that is also a factor.

So rather than complain about how white males are having such a tough time – perhaps you could offer some solutions on making all parts of society engage in politics?

” PragueTory… By your own account the way parliament functions makes it difficult for women. You don’t want to talk about the sexism that women may face but that is also a factor.”

a) I don’t think it sexism in the selection process is a major factor
b) Institutional reform which I advocate would address many of the issues of gender balance
c) Measures to address ‘sexism’ in the selection process are misguided and in terms of the quality of people who end up in Parliament are likely to do more harm than good.

At least you haven’t called me a sexist yet.

And… no prizes for guessing what party the ONLY WOMAN PM the United Kingdom has had, belonged to……

You’re talking out of your backside as per usual.

“Oh really? If that is the case then why does parliament and politics remain overwhelmingly male? Are women just not suited? Are they stupid, according to you? Would love to hear your thoughts”

As Praguetory points out, there were 8 applications from women and 40 from men in Dudley. The conclusion we can draw from that is that either a) women fundamentally struggle to complete and return an application form or b) women are less interested in becoming MPs than men. As a) seems highly unlikely I’d have to say that b) is the reason why parliament and politics is overwhelmingly male.

Now, if I can turn the question back on you. Why do you think women need the help of all-women shortlists to become MPs? Are they so stupid that they cannot succeed without you removing all competition from males? Do you believe that a woman cannot beat a man, and that we can only get female MPs if they are given a bye? Or, if they can beat a man, then why do they need your ‘all women lists’ help? Would love to hear your thoughts.

FFS – it is self-selection.
The male/female ratio more or less reflects the ratio of applicants.
So there is (no longer) any direct discrimination.

That doesn’t mean we have a healthy situation.

But to turn this into a party issue is verging on the desperate…but then I guess given where things stand today you are desperate!

“As Praguetory points out, there were 8 applications from women and 40 from men in Dudley. The conclusion we can draw from that is that either a) women fundamentally struggle to complete and return an application form or b) women are less interested in becoming MPs than men. As a) seems highly unlikely I’d have to say that b) is the reason why parliament and politics is overwhelmingly male.”

Indeed, It’s the same bollox argument that’s been trotted out for decades to support interference in the labour market in the supposed cause of equality.
Everything must be “representative” (which means 52% female), otherwise an institution is exhibiting systemic bias. The fact that men/women have innate preferences, interests and abilities which quite naturally influence their career choices seems to completely pass the left by. Would anyone seriously suggest that men are “under-represented” as airline cabin crew/nursese/nail technicians and that airlines, the NHS and the beauty industry are therefore sexist ?

That’s it sunny. The issue doesn’t really matter that much to you. So long as it’s a way to bash those nasty tories (who had Maggie as PM and who, if I recall have just had a young woman elected as an MP).

What do we say to Harriet about the fact that the women in this labour government have almost without exception been incompetent?

Now now Rich B, be more objective. It’s not like the men in this Labour government have been all that great either.

Sunny, I don’t think anyone within the Labour party, John Prescott included, resents Harriet Harman’s attempts to open the debate about female representation etc. What I resent is the provocative nature of the comments she made which were so easily misconstrude by the media. What were her PR people thinking?

In a world of 24 hour news cycles and an ever increasing blogosphere did she really think these sorts of comments were wise? By all means open up the debate, but please do it without creating a partisan media frenzy in the process.

The thrust of this article seems to be about how Labour might best exploit the issue to its advantage. What happened to Liberal Conspiracy’s mission to debate the issues?

“Unlike other blogs dedicated to promoting specific political parties, we are dedicated to developing, discussion and promoting good ideas and policies.”
https://liberalconspiracy.org/faq/

This is really not good enough.

“A debate on sexism in politics is fine but I don’t see any party political advantage for Labour here.

“The Orator is right in that using this as a stick to beat Cameron with is tacky when it’s an issue we should be taking up anyway, on it’s own merits – even if it impacts on the lads club Labour has become again.”

–

I second that.

Absolutely, Sunny. After all, this is the United Kingdom and it’s time we had a Queen dammit!