The Observer reports today that David Cameron is going to make a pledge to ensure that by the end of Parliament one third of his Ministers would be women. The article then contradicts itself and says it's an 'aspiration' rather than a quota.
I have no problem with the party wanting to increase the number of female frontbenchers, but I would indeed draw the line at a quota. We are talking about the government of this country, after all. The appointment of Ministers is not something to be played with by the politically correct. It's important that the most talented people in the parliamentary party are appointed Ministers, regardless of their gender or ethnicity. While most of us can see the merits of a priority list for candidates, I think we'd draw the line at the same system for the appointment of Ministers.
Any while we're on the subject, if there was a serious commitment to promoting talented women, why isn't Julie Kirkbride on the front bench?
I think you might want to revise your post title their Iain, those with smutty minds could perhaps misinterpret...;)
ReplyDeleteI think it's a great idea - just look at the wealth of talent Labour have benefitted from by promoting women:
ReplyDeleteHarriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt, Hazel Blears, Jacqui Smith, Margaret Beckett, Dawn Primarolo, Margaret Hodge, Estelle Morris, Angela Eagle
Oh, hang on...
A colleague of mine, who is closely related to Ms Kirkbride, informed me some years back that, in his judgement, she's two stops on from Upton Park. Perhaps young David's reached the same conclusion...
ReplyDeleteRead the article Iain. It uses the words 'aspiration' and 'vows', which in this context can't both be right. The article doesn't report Cameron's actual words.
ReplyDeleteThe fact the article feels it necessary to say that it would "nonetheless" be embarrassing if he failed to meet the target suggests that in fact it is a mere aspiration, a hope that the next election would bring enough women of enough talent to be seriously represented at the top, which is not unreasonable.
The overall report however attempts to suggests it's a vow in the quota sense, which to me points to some license on the part of the writers, ostensibly to provoke the result as seen here and on other blogs.
Read the words, Iain, look behind the headlines, don't jump to the tune of the press.
David, I made the self same point in the opening para of my piece!
ReplyDeleteHowever, this does have the hallmark of briefing so I feel it is worth commenting on.
So you did; how embarrassing.....
ReplyDeleteWhy is sex the only denominator of tokenism ? Why not profession ? Or the type of school you went to or if your a member of Kensington and Chelsea association ?
ReplyDeleteWe could reform the house of lords as the house of tokenism perhaps. Maybe that's good electioneering.
But at some point talent, vision and leadership are needed for government.
Iain, do you have David Cameron's email address?? I must email him to ask him to ensure he has a fixed percentage of his cabinet are left-handed, blind window cleaners from the Isle of Wight.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I DONT care who he puts in his cabinet, so long as they are good at their job. Not much to ask is it?
Women under Cameron
ReplyDeleteMy neighbour, who has always been a bit odd, is rather excited by the idea of the "Women under Cameron" group and wonders how she can join.
Did you see the Vancouver bielection? All the candidates were women.
ReplyDeleteJust when I thought Camoron couldn't get any more stupid, he manages to plumb new depths of stupidity.
ReplyDeleteMost MPs are men so rather than drawing on a large pool of MPs to get the best ministers, he's going to place an arbitrary quota on the number of women MPs so we can look forward to a second-rate cabinet of women MPs who've got the job to make up the numbers.
"I have no problem with the party wanting to increase the number of female frontbenchers, but I would indeed draw the line at a quota."
ReplyDeleteIn effect, one entails the other.
If you're specifically looking to increase the number of female frontbenchers, then you are bringing in a consideration other than ability to do the job: which is what quotas are all about, isn't it?
Iain writes: While most of us can see the merits of a priority list for candidates,...
ReplyDeleteWrong. Never mind "merits" in the plural, I do not see a single merit in this dingbat, lefty, socialist, "inclusive" notion. Cameron doesn't understand who his potential voters are.
If he thinks women want more women in government, he is a moonbat who should never have been allowed out of the bat cave. So who is jumping up and down asking for more women in Parliament, given that it's not women? Men?
This is not how a Margaret Thatcher emerges. One more dud from Cameron.
its often said that if we had quotas for women MPs we wouldnt get the best politicians. Given how ordinary many (though not all) are why not make it 50:50? it might at least encourage some younger women to get involved in politics and the cons.
ReplyDeletewhat i'd like to know is how many MPs got involved early in their adult life whether as union officials or via student politics. these are the ones I worry about.
wouldnt it be great if more MPs stood for election after half a life of doing something else possibly even bringing up a family
5:02 - "Given how ordinary many (though not all) are why not make it 50:50?"
ReplyDeleteWhy?
MPs dont have to be men or even talented - they just need to be representative of the electorate. It is this outdated emphasis on local representatives that is a problem. Why not reduce the number of electorates by 80% and increase the number of MPs elected from each one by a similar (or indeed lower%) amount.
ReplyDeletethe mother of parliaments needs more mothers.
Paging David Cameron! Paging Mr David Cameron! I have a better idea! Let's make up to women for all the years they weren't participants in Parliament. We should take it right back to before the years when women first got the vote! Two hundred years at least!
ReplyDeleteTo make "reparations", why not have ALL women lists? For the next decade or 20 years until the "reparations" have cleared the stain on the character of Parliament, we should have ALL-WOMEN MPs! No men allowed to run!!
This is no more mind-bogglingly ridiculous than David Cameron's latest foray into the fields of far-left collectivist political correctness!
Verity - as usual maybe you are the Moonbat - if you surveyed the female populace of the UK and asked them if they thought more women MPs was a good idea I would put good money on them saying yes.
ReplyDeleteReferencing Margaret Thatcher is a red (maybe blue) herring. She was clearly an extraordinary politician. Both in the UK and globally. Other MPs arent a failure because they dont become PM or make it onto the front bench.
because Verity I want our elected democracy to represent the people they, errm, represent. I dont care if they are the sharpest intellectuals in the parliamentary woodpile. It is good if some of them have the ambition and wherewithall to climb the Westminster ladder. We need leaders for sure. Would just prefer the remainder werent failed half-rate numptys from labour union or Oxford Union politics.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there are way too many MPs in Parliament anyway.
ReplyDeleteIn the US, they have 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. Five hundred and thirty-five people to legislate for the vastness that is the United States and a population of 302m.
There are 659 MPs in the British Parliament, a tiny set of islands that would fit into the state of Texas alone over three times.
This is bloody absurd. Britain is way, way, way over-governed. (And women are bossier than men. What a nightmare!)
5:25 - and I would put money on women saying no, they don't want more women in Parliament.
ReplyDelete5:35 writes with stunning lack of a tether to reality: "because Verity I want our elected democracy to represent the people they, errm, represent."
OK. Then we "need" more red-headed women MPs. In today's Britain, we "need" more seriously fat MPs. We "need" all black shortlists. Muslims are currently, as the lefty council phrase goes "underrepresented", so how about an "all-muslim" lists?
And what about blondes, then? And this would be especially tricky and fiddly and therefore beloved of politicians, because women change their hair colour, so one woman who was elected froma red-head shortlist would have to be retired halfway through the Parliament if enough women registered that they had switched to blonde.
This is the only way, 5:35, "our elected democracy [will] represent the people they, errm, represent."
Also, what about mothers and fathers? They should be represented by a proportionate number of mothers and fathers, although again, this would have to stay fluid as people's families grow. An MP who was the parent of an only child would not be suitable to represent a family with four children in it.
I've seen some daft ideas emerging from David Cameron's head (the first being that the British people would be unaccountably impressed with a photo of him standing, in a brand new parka, on an ice floe in Norway accompanied by two puzzled looking huskies) and he is absolutely the wrong person to be leading the Conservatives.
chocky intifada
ReplyDeletedont know bout you but last time I looked women were 50 odd % of the population. Many of them have a different view on things than men do. We live in a society not an intellectual paradise. Many of us had 1 mum as as well as 1 dad. I am sure redheads have a unique take on life as well but I doubt it is the same as women do. I doubt they feel the need for equal represenatation in parliament.
Evening up the number of women in parliament, as opposed to redheads, strikes me as a seriously good and doable thing in the early stages of the 21st century.
Asking why our parliament would be much improved by approximately 50% women just seems perverse.
If you want the Tories to be in power again (unlikely at the moment) then DC has to modernise - like it or not.
ReplyDeleteOf course there should be more women ministers - that's obvious.
I'm a fan of Cameron, but he has made two mistakes in the last few days.
ReplyDeleteHe shouldn't have rebuked Lord Mancroft over the remarks about nurses. Mancroft's experience replicates mine and many others'.
He shouldn't even think of quotas for women cabinet ministers. Surely that grisly bunch of women opposite him in the commons should be enough to put him off the idea?
Chocky
ReplyDelete"Also, what about mothers and fathers? They should be represented by a proportionate number of mothers and fathers, although again"
I said this - I would like more MPs who had already spent their life bringing up their families
Of course the proposal is loopy and discriminates against men.
ReplyDeleteTrouble is, the constituency for promotion on merit is shrinking, while the constituency for discrimination on the basis of gender is increasing. To put things bluntly, if you promise to discriminate in government in favor of women (and against men), you'll gain more votes of women than you lose votes of men.
Cameron's proposal reflects that (sad) reality.
Bedhopper is right 6.19pm
ReplyDeleteThe NHS should not be treated as an organisation which should not be criticised. Cameron does rather rush in where fools fear to tread.
If it was that good Lords experience it must be the truth. Cameron would be far better saying he will call for a Royal Commission into Health Care and Health Provision. So that a new and better strategy can be adopted within this country. Else we shall be pouring millions more every year into the bottomless pit called the NHS.
Well, that is an advantage of quotas that I hadn't thought of. A mass walk-out of a certain type of member might do wonders for the Conservative Party.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, it is stupid to discard so much talent because it comes packed in a body of the wrong shape or the wrong colour. Those MPs who are not pale stale males have by definition got something extra going for them, to beat the obstacles stacked against them. So we might expect them to be overrepresented on the front benches compared with their proportion of the party's MPs.
Why does having a reasonable number of women in Parliament matter? Fawcett has explained.
I'm surprised that you think Julie Kirkbride should be promoted after she demonstrated shocking political judgement in her backing of the discredited doctor involved in the MMR fiasco a few years ago, causing thousands of parents such panic that they refused to immunise their children. The best and safest place for her is to remain on the back benches.
ReplyDeleteI ask again - is there anyone on this website who thinks our parliament would be worse off with more women MPs? I know its a difficult question - the implication that we should elect MPs purely on the basis of their sex seems wrong.
ReplyDeleteWe used to elect MPs on the basis of their personal wealth believing that only the landed Oxbridge educated gentry could intelligently represent their "dumb" constituents.
Well, Yes, Yes, Yes. And where is the proof they couldn't?
More women MPs. Defo.
I have no idea what a Moonbat is, though it doesn't sound good. Am I going to regret asking ? (no because its going in Anon ;-) )
ReplyDeleteO'Neill said:
ReplyDelete"think you might want to revise your post title their Iain, those with smutty minds could perhaps misinterpret...;)"
anon 7.05pm
ReplyDeleteMoonbat is one of whatsernames fave putdowns.
no probs - Verity only gets out of her coffin after midnight (she lives on the east coast of the US) and comes back with some crackin' putdowns while we are all asleep... wonder why she bothers living there.
ReplyDeleteBruce and others, you are wrong when you say that women candidates will increase the female vote. Women do not want other women in charge of them.
ReplyDeleteWomen in power tend to be more bossy and interfering than men in power. Look at Fat Harriet Harman, for example - a busybody. Patricia Hewitt - a busybody. Ruth Kelly - a busybody. Tessa Jowell - a busybody. All the rest of those fat nonentities whose names I can't remember ...interferers every single one of them. Hillary Clinton, for another. Nancy Pelosi. Busy, busy, busy, busy with other people's lives.
David Cameron cannot relate to normal people. He tries to imagine what normal people want, but he has come in contact with so few of us that he just has to go with his imagination.
I said elsewhere that 'moonbat' is a word invented by Samizdata owner Perry de Havilland around three or four years ago and it has taken its place in the language. It's a great word because it can be embellished as required. For example, one can refer to a "shrieking moonbat" to describe socialist women. A "greedy moonbat" for top Labour women and Jack Straw. Etc.
ReplyDeleteBTW - Again, women don't like being bossed about by other women and the idea of forcing more women cabinet members down the electorate's throat may backfire. I hope so. If David Cameron is going to keep copying the Labourites, people might as well vote Labour.
eh Verity - this week Radio 4 is doing a season on Euripides. Go and have a listen my love. He was an early champion of women. Understood the awful position that they often found themselves in.
ReplyDeletenobody likes being bossed around Verity, by men or women. thanks for the etymology of "moonbat". Always seemed to apply to you anyway defo. And your point is?
ReplyDeletedefo appreciate your view that you dont represent the standard female viewpoint. no probs. doesnt mean there isnt a good point to be made for 50:50 female representation in parliament.
you miss my point. if there are going to be idiots in parliament then I want 50% of them to be women.
yeah but you are the Moonbat here Verity. By your own definition.
ReplyDeleteAstro-Turf Lawnmower - Thanks for your list. I'd forgotten Margaret Beckett! And Dim Prawn!
ReplyDeleteEven from our side, do we really want more Teresa Mays?
Verity is the spokesperson for 'normal' people now? hahahahaha.
ReplyDeleteI don't care what shape or appendages a legislator has...only that s/he is there by merit, is capable & honest.
ReplyDeleteQuotas are demeaning...not only to the governed...but also to those who constitute the quota.
So, to clarify - nobody so far thinks this is a good idea?
ReplyDeleteEqual pay for equal work is correct but the believe that a lack of women in desirable positions is due to discrimination by men has reached the level of a religious belief. By this I mean it is presented as a revealed truth, such as the immaculate conception, and that it is categorically not “consistent with the statistical analysis of empirical data”. Peter Wood’s Diversity: The Invention of a Concept details how it arose. Though there is a great deal of research on the topic in academic journals, as far as I am aware not one Westminister politician has addressed it. For example of the research see Professor Timothy Bates’ current research Abstract ... Males have only a marginal advantage in mean levels of [IQ] but substantially greater variance. Among the top 2% ... there were almost twice as many males as females. These differences could provide a partial basis for sex differences in intellectual eminence. I suggest to you that within the contractually mandated policy of Diversity, quoting this would be an example of “the truth is no defence”. Do the politicians of Norway, who mandate that 40% of top jobs be held by women, know of this research? Would they want to?
ReplyDelete"Do the politicians of Norway, who mandate that 40% of top jobs be held by women, know of this research? Would they want to?"
ReplyDeleteI doubt it. Any scientist who still thinks that it is useful to treat intelligence as a single quality has a deficit thereof. Some academic psychologist [Gardiner?] got closer to the mark in talking in terms of intelligences, plural. Is an architect more intelligent than a playwright? It's a non-question.
Should there be more women in Parliament? Another non-question. I don't care if it's a male apparatchik or a female apparatchik. If it catches no mice, it's a useless apparatchik. (Teng Xiao Ping, almost)
Meaning: the career structure for an aspiring Parliamentarian virtually guarantees uselessness. Female MPs nevertheless seem to be the more risible half of the species, fortuitously or not.
It's a great idea.
ReplyDeleteThe more the lib/lab/cons go off into their own little worlds of delusion the less people will vote and the quicker we get to revenge time. Go for it girls!
10:35 - Someone wrote over on The Speccie's Coffee House (I can't find it again) of the reason he will not be voting for Cameron, and actually, I realised that he spoke for me, too.
ReplyDeleteParaphrasing him, the lefties like Ken Clarke, Chris Patten et Cie in the Tory party got rid of William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard (although Howard really resigned off his own bat). At last, they have one of their own, a socialist in all but name - David Cameron. The poster in The Coffee House does not want Dave to triumph, because it will be a triumph for the left, who will crow, "See? We were always seen as 'the nasty party' [so-called, by them] and when we get a nice, soft, left-leaning Tory leader, he can lead us to victory."
That would be the end of the Conservative Party and its promotion of sound conservative values.
David Cameron has to lose this next election. He is no better than Gordon Brown. Better we beat Cameron back and endure Gordon Brown for however many more years, until the Tories can get behind a real Tory. Dave is a socialist. If he wins, it's the end of the Conservatives and we can all sit in peace circles in the Swedish mode.
We need someone like Patrick Mercer. Someone sure of himself who understands what Conservatism stands for. I'm sure there are others, equally sure-footed, who I don't know about.
David Cameron is not it, and he will spell the death of the party unless removed.