Harriet Harman calls for 50% quota for female shadow cabinet members

carolt

misskool wrote: »

And how are you going to decide when the privilege conferred gets to be done away with? And what happens when you remove positive discrimation and the numbers of female MPs then fall back to where they were before positive discrimination because it was a short term solution instead of addressing long term issues?

I speak from experience of racial positive discrimation. Where I grew up, certain aspects of life were positively discriminated to certain racial groups to redistribute wealth. This created a generation of people who felt entitled to it all and didn't need to work hard to achieve what they wanted. Now you cannot remove the discrimation and quotas because they just cannot compete properly.

I cannot imagine having women MPs who could not stand up on their own but instead are in government because someone said there should be more women MPs.

(and mostly I agree with your postings but not time )

I think it should ideally be a short-term solution. It would work long-term when you remove the stimulus because by then having lots of women in parliament has become 'normal', so more women apply, existing women continue and existing men (or future men) view women MPs as a part of the normal status quo.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

Interestingly, chocolate body paint is zero rated, (presumably it counts as food.

Your knowledge is always stunning gen, but you've taken it to a new level here. How on earth did you find that out? Or for that matter, think to find that out? Or is this a regular on Mr & Mrs G's shopping list ?

carolt

nickmason wrote: »

This is bonkers. Parliament is representative of the interests of 0% of the population. (Not even the MPs themselves). What it needs to do is represent, not be representative of. That means being aware of, and learning to engage with, all groups. It doesn't mean pouring a quart of views and attitudes and skin-colours and sexual orientations and genders and geographical origins and religions and employment and education history and education standards and wealths and incomes into a pint-pot - and then complaining that that hasn't worked.

Really well put.

The problem is, that whilst I agree with you 100% in theory, in practice I think that it needs to be (more) representative in order to represent fully.

I agree 100% representation is neither possibly nor desirable.

But without some moves towards greater representation, I think it's just wishful thinking to imagine the current lot really care to represent the views of the majority.

As the expense scandal showed, too many MPs represent their own personal interests first - they're human.

Which is why we need a greater range of people there.

I don't like the idea of imposing quotas, but I'm not sure that the alternatives aren't worse.

I think we need to make decisions based on real human nature, not on a parliament composed of fantasy 'perfect' MPs.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Your knowledge is always stunning gen, but you've taken it to a new level here. How on earth did you find that out? Or for that matter, think to find that out? Or is this a regular on Mr & Mrs G's shopping list ?

I have a very trivial mind and when I hear something like that it tends to stick.

For example, I remember some of the oddities about the old Sunday trading laws where you could buy a fresh fish but not a smoked one, a copy of Penthouse but not a Bible on a Sunday.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Interesting.

I'd be interested to see Really's response to that.

Well Carol, without you trying to make out I am a sexist or making anything else out.;)

I would point at a few possible answers.

1) There less women in work than men.
2) less women are in full time work than men.
3) Voting is not an indication of interest in politics is it (some people vote for the same party all their lives and do not look at one policy)? I voted and have no yearn to be an MP, councillor etc.

I think looking how may males and females study politics at university may be more indictive as an interestin politics than voting to be honest.

carolt

Re the first point,there are - but the ratio wasn't 80 men to every 20 women last time I looked.

Re the 2nd point, how do you explain the fact that the majority of new lawyers (and I think I read GPs?) are now women?

Re the 3rd point - true, but in the absence of any better indicator, it seems to point in the right direction...

Do you have any figures re the last point?

lostinrates

Re women MPs...that doesn't necessarily count the women quota in politics. Is the female similarly low in other areas of politics? It occurs to me I know more women who work in ''politics'' in various roles than I do men.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Re the first point,there are - but the ratio wasn't 80 men to every 20 women last time I looked.

Re the 2nd point, how do you explain the fact that the majority of new lawyers (and I think I read GPs?) are now women?

Re the 3rd point - true, but in the absence of any better indicator, it seems to point in the right direction...

Do you have any figures re the last point?

Carol, why do you have to turn things in to a gender war?

1)Do women votes really out number men by 4-1?
2) what have lawyers got to do with working part time do you really dispute there are less male part time workers than female considering you and many other women only go back to work part time after having children.
3) you can not take voting as an indicator of interest in politics, do you realy think 50% of the population want to be an MP?

In my world carol I embrace that men and women differ physicaly, mentaly, psychologicaly and socialy and do not think we should force things to happen, it is better to look at people as people and chose them on atributes NOT GENDER

If you think men and women have an equal interest in things answer one of my questions from earlier.

Why is do less females look to join the army than men?
How you think men and women are you would expect to see it 50/50 (and don't argue that women are not stupid enough to fight or you are admidting men and women do think differently.:))

I look forward to you arguing why it is not 50/50 without stating that men and women do not behave exactly the same and think the same.:)

carolt

Please read my previous post as I clearly stated I don't think men and women are identical nor should be.

I think the one viewing this as a gender war is you - sit back and chill.

None of your responses to my most recent post make any sense - could you reread my post and answer it meaningfully and then I can respond - can't be bothered to point out the errors in every single sentence of your post.

By all means disagree with me but could you at least do it logically so I can respond without needing to repeat all my points again.

Thanks.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

Re women MPs...that doesn't necessarily count the women quota in politics. Is the female similarly low in other areas of politics? It occurs to me I know more women who work in ''politics'' in various roles than I do men.

Have at you local council list, there expenses would have been recently released.

We have 79 councilors in our area 22 are female.