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

Shakethedisease

Like I said colour is less eqally reprisented than gender, yet that does not seem to be a problem for Harmen, you or Carol. But I have not used the same kind of twist around logic you and carol use to make out that must mean you are racist

I don't know if you've noticed. But women aren't a minority group or an ethnic minority. You keep talking like they are for some reason. I have absolutely no idea why ?

Harman is trying to change the 'facts' and get more women involved and feeling welcome in politics. Make it 'normal' for women to be seen as a big proportion of the decison-making processes in the UK. At the moment they are a minority in those positions and there seems to be no other explanations other than 'they just aren't interested'.. that's a smoke screen.

In Politics, just as in every other area of life in this country. When it comes to the big money and power jobs, while there are exceptions.. for most women, no matter how good, how intelligent or how great they 'would' be at the job. They'll be passed over for someone who doesn't have a pair of ovaries. And those that aren't passed over ? Will be paid considerably less for doing exactly the same job. And I DO mean exactly.

There IS something really wrong there. And it's well known in the corridors of power. It's people like you unfortunately, that will perpetuate this fallacy.

Women are just and capable of representing and empathising with consituents as Mp's. No-one's denying that. But :-

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-16123550-sexism-row-hits-tories.do

The Conservatives were at the centre of a new sexism storm today over attempts to deselect another high-profile women candidate. No reason has been given for why the local party is trying to oust her less than 10 weeks before the possible general election...

The Conservative Party website praises Mrs Jobson for being "actively involved in politics" for more than 25 years and points out she was awarded the OBE for political services...

The possible departure of another woman will raise questions about the party's commitment to increasing the number of female candidates. Critics have pointed out that there are more men called Phillip selected for winnable seats than there are women candidates. In a further embarrassment for Michael Howard, another attempt is being made to de-select the openly gay candidate for Falmouth and Cambourne in Cornwall. The Tory leadership has already had to intervene on behalf of Ashley Crossley when the local party tried to oust him last year.

This sort of thing, really, says it all. At top levels the will is there, the talk is there and the walk is there...A little further down the chain however, the glass ceiling and old fashioned attitudes are still very much alive and well. The local parties are not so 'enlightened' shall we say.. and that is why women aren't getting to the top. It's nothing to do with 'women just not being interested'. It's that those that are, despite exceptions here and there,.. get nowhere once it comes to selecting those 'suitable' for the real power jobs.

Let's face it, if we still have to justify on a simple money-saving forum why there should be a relatively, not equal, but a relatively good number of female MP's in real power positions ? What hope is there in the 'serious' areas of candidates and the selection 'panel' actually selecting them ? ( Unless of course, they change their names to Philip).

That's the simple answer to your questions above. At local levels, the women put forward are still subject to a bit of plain old 'better in a part time job and looking after your kids, or you're a bit past it luv' kind of attitude. One that still prevails over every area of full-time employment/career advancement and opportunties for women today.

Over and out xxx

carolt

Can't believe the men called Philip bit!

Hilarious but at the same time absolutely bloody terrifying. :eek:

misskool

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Harman is trying to change the 'facts' and get more women involved and feeling welcome in politics. Make it 'normal' for women to be seen as a big proportion of the decison-making processes in the UK. At the moment they are a minority in those positions and there seems to be no other explanations other than 'they just aren't interested'.. that's a smoke screen.

And how is imposing a quota "normal"?

Really2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't know if you've noticed. But women aren't a minority group or an ethnic minority. You keep talking like they are for some reason. I have absolutely no idea why ?

Who said they were (There you go again making up what I had said), I was talking equal representation and minority groups are even less represented than females overall as a % of the population.
Being, black, white, female, male is no different we are just people so we should see equal representation in all areas, not just gender.

Still no comment on the local council figures though, disappointing really as in the debate I did offer some possible reasons while some just seem to be adamant it is just sexisum without offering any explanation of less females run to be local councilors.:o
But it is always easier to fling mud than explain your view why things like this exist than debate isn't it.;)

Kohoutek

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Let's face it, if we still have to justify on a simple money-saving forum why there should be a relatively, not equal, but a relatively good number of female MP's in real power positions ? What hope is there in the 'serious' areas of candidates and the selection 'panel' actually selecting them ? ( Unless of course, they change their names to Philip).

That's the simple answer to your questions above. At local levels, the women put forward are still subject to a bit of plain old 'better in a part time job and looking after your kids, or you're a bit past it luv' kind of attitude. One that still prevails over every area of full-time employment/career advancement and opportunties for women today.

Why doesn't Harriet Harman propose primary elections (where voters select parties' candidates for constituency seats) then? It would prevent the problem of old-fashioned male local party bosses from overlooking female candidates because of prejudice. It would give the power to select candidates to voters. It would make Britain more democratic.

Presumably it's because Harman is a hypocritical control freak who only wants 'top down' solutions to continue her personal crusades. I feel sorry for people who believe she is any more genuine than the countless other Labour career politicians sucking wealth from the Westminster straw and attempting to impose their half-baked ideas on the country. Where were the ethnic minority quotas or the all-women shortlist when her husband needed to be parachuted into a safe seat? Nowhere to be seen...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7017264.ece

Really2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Where were the ethnic minority quotas or the all-women shortlist when her husband needed to be parachuted into a safe seat? Nowhere to be seen...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7017264.ece

Could not agree more with your post. Especially the bit quoted.

I would have agreed with Harman more if she pointed out where there where eqalities across the board and how they could be tackled.
But instead only gender was chosen, in my view changes need be made from the roots up, not from the top down or they will end up with a topsy turvy situation and not have enough "new blood" coming in generation after generation.

If they get equal representation at a local level we would hopefully see more people taking the next "step up" and see more full time politicians.
Also if it did not happen after that had happened someone would seriously have to look why the equality at a local level is not being represented in the numbers of MP's.

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

Who said they were (There you go again making up what I had said), I was talking equal representation and minority groups are even less represented than females overall as a % of the population.
Being, black, white, female, male is no different we are just people so we should see equal representation in all areas, not just gender.

Still no comment on the local council figures though, disappointing really as in the debate I did offer some possible reasons while some just seem to be adamant it is just sexisum without offering any explanation of less females run to be local councilors.:o
But it is always easier to fling mud than explain your view why things like this exist than debate isn't it.;)

No-one commented because it didn't make any sense.

It's reasonable to assume that whatever factor is keeping women out of politics out a national level is also keeping them out of politics at a local level.

So the fact that there aren't many women in local politics either doesn't 'prove' that women aren't interested in politics.

It just underlines the fact that there aren't many women in politics. Which we already know.

It doesn't help us one jot or tittle re the cause of this situation.


You think it's just down to a lack of interest among women in politics.

I think - speaking as a woman interested in politics myself - that that's just absolute bobbins.

Just saying 'it is because it is' is not really an argument. I'd like something a bit more substantial than your sterotype of women as proof that this is indeed the cause.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

No-one commented because it didn't make any sense.

It's reasonable to assume that whatever factor is keeping women out of politics out a national level is also keeping them out of politics at a local level.

Any one can run for local government, you do not have to aligned to a party to stand as a local councilor and it is the public who votes you in.
What is the factor then Carol? Sexist voting , let me know as I am at a lost on local council members are held back by what you think??(please answer this as I do fell it is relevant)


I said it possibly down to women not being as interested overall as a percentage in politics (it could be wrong but who else is giving any other reasons), that is all and looked at if that could be a possibility.
So I am at a loss why you think this does not show an interest in politics but voting does?

If I wanted to be involved in politics my first step would to run as a local independant TBH.

Not sure on you last line Carol, you have not given any figures at all to support what you may think, perhaps now might be a good time to supply some instead of playing the sexisum card.

If I would you I would prove it by
1) Showing equal numbers of women and men take politics as a degree course.
2) Showing there are an equal split of local independent male and female councilors.

See easy to look at examples where the inherinet sexisum you believe is true would not have an influence.
But you can do your own research.

All I have done is though rationally and tried to find reasons why without suddenly shouting SEXISM.
I am ready to change why I think it may happen (and believe to some extent it may have some sway when looking at elder party members who decide things).
But it is a poor debate when one side can't be bothered to look in to things and just instantly goes to it's "SEXISM"
But then you do use the daily mail a lot for links.;)

carolt

Anyone can also stand as an independent MP - but few do.

Where I live, all our councillors are affiliated to one of the main parties. AFAIK, this is the norm across the country.

I'm not clear how the fact that it is technically possible to stand as an independent makes your point.

EDIT:

You have now substantially altered your last post since I posted this one, presumably to try to answer it.

Not really clear how the cheap jibe about the Daily Mail adds to your argument? Or whether it was just a rather pointless cheap jibe for the hell of it?

I don't really see why I should have to do your legwork for you and have no interest in doing so.

You claimed that women were not applying to be MPs and this was due to their lack of interest in politics full stop.

I have not as yet seen ANY EVIDENCE posted by you to back up this claim.

If you have some, I'd love to see it and will happily agree that you were right all along.

If your 'evidence' consists of the fact that the women you know don't happen to be interested in politics, excuse me for being less than convinced.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Anyone can also stand as an independent MP - but few do.

Where I live, all our councillors are affiliated to one of the main parties. AFAIK, this is the norm across the country.

I'm not clear how the fact that it is technically possible to stand as an independent makes your point.

To become an MP you need to win your local MP election and is virtually impossible to do.

It is Far, Far, Far, Far, Far, Far, Far, Far, Far easier to win a seat as a councilor than an MP as they are based on wards of towns and are won on LOCAL ISSUES not the GENERAL ELECTION vote.

Carol I seriously doubt you have no local independent councillors, I used to live in an extreamly rural area and we still had them. I would be shocked if there was not one LG without one independent in the UK.
I thought I would look on line for any county, this council have 2.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HPCjC_rULb4J:www2.canterbury.gov.uk/committee/mgMemberIndex.asp+canterbury+councilers+local&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Anyway, the above.;)