Prospective MPs' selection

Love Ann Widdecome (no "E"). She is stoic and forthright. Not afraid to speak her views.

She has a wonderful programme this week standing in for looney liberal leftie James O'Brien (who has a lot of growing up to do) and she is infinitely better than he is.

She is allowed to speak her mind and I think there is an awful lot of truth in what she says.

Obama voted in because he is black - women voted in because they are woman.

Just ain't right. I agree.

Widdicombe is the Tories' equivalent of Mandelson - she just doesn't care no more - says what she wants to say - quite a liberating feeling, I'd have thought

"positive" discrimination for one group is automatically a "negative" discrimination for another... If women are good enough they will be elected. It is an insult to give women special treatment as if they a second class citizens and need help to get on...the same goes for race, colour, sexuality etc, can you imagine the outcry if they had "gay only" or "heterosexual only" shortlists.....

well if Anne Whitcomb re enters the political spectrum then you will surly start to get a few home truths As like her or loath her she will give you a good run for your money Its a pity there aren't a few more like her as the truth often hurts and in my opinion shes straight down the middle.

Can't believe that I'm agreeing with Anne Widdecombe but the three main political parties really do have to get to grips with this issue, most of the electorate (man or woman) want the best person for the job, not someone from a politically correct list of names on a quota - women like Thatcher, Castle, Widdecombe etc. got were there got/are by being better than their male opponents not because they were at the top of some all female list...

It seems as if all the best MP's are jacking it in because of the company they are expected to keep, and they can do better elsewhere.

We will be left with the rossette-sporting rubbish in the next election because they have nowhere else to go.

How a party chooses its prospective candidates is of no interest to anyone but members of that particular party, the electorate will choose the MP.
However the electoral system is biased in favour of the established parties (there's a surprise).
We should do away with the deposit system (currently 500 UK pounds) which discriminates against independents and small parties and replace it with a minimum number of signatures of registered constituents to be collected before an election.
A cap on the amount of money that can be spent on campaigning.
Level the playing field for all, not just women.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

'She says Mr Cameron's efforts to get more women into parliament threaten to fill the House of Commons with "second class citizens".'
Heaven forfend! That would never do!

In reply too comments by "BobRocket" wrote @ #7:

The last thing this (any) country needs is a Parliament full of independents, One might not like the shade of a particular government (under the existing electoral system) but at least they can make decisions, countries that have large numbers of political parties or independent MPs nearly always have successively weak (coalition) governments were nothing get decided.

when a woman gets to the top in politics, she can do one of two things ...

(1) she can turn around and offer a helping hand to her sisters

... like Harriet

or:

(2) she can say "I'm aboard, burn that ladder!"

... like Widders

women tell me they prefer the first approach, and I think they're right

No doubt, the quality of MPs is now in direct correlation with the quantity of people who can spell the surname of Miss Widdecombe, correctly.

Democracy? Even those of a lesser education get to have their say! The lowest common denominator, how wonderful. Those who have subregal ideas get to put their own recommendations, to HM, on who should be in Government.

Bring back Henry the Eighth. He'd, happily, rip it all up & start again!

Oh Saga, you will never get inside the mind of a woman - bet your wife says that to you too!

#2 Saga

Somehow think she will appreciate the analogy more than Mandelson.

I prefer to think of her as a pantomine dame who knows a good line and plays up to her image.

#11

How about a third approach?

"I will support whichever candidate for a particular post or position is the best, be it a man or a woman."

#10 Boilerplated

The current system of party entrenchment means that the party leaders (a small and elite group) make the policy that the rest of the country has to live with, no matter how many of the electorate (or even members of that party) disagree with a particular policy, reasoned debate is quashed and unsuitable legislation is steam-rollered through. Independents (and independent minded party-members) have no such bind and are free to question the motive and operation of proposals although as Ms Widdecombe would agree, members who don't toe the party line rarely get promoted within the party ranks

9. Pop - a few "second class citizens" in the Labour government right now. What about the dreadful "Defence Minister" the Hitler lookalike?

I would desert from the services if I was a soldier under HIS politically driven motivations.

No, Ann (No "E") Widdecombe is a refreshing breath of fresh air and to millions she actually speakes SENSE. COMMON SENSE.

Come on now, Saga, you wouldn't hit a lady with glasses on now would you?

Saga your two little alternatives are simplistic and wrong. The first option isn't giving women a helping hand up the ladder it is pushing men off it - there is a difference.

While Ann Widdecombe isn't burning the ladder behind her she is just leaving it as it is giving anyone an equal chance to climb it.

If Harriet Harman was a man then most of the stuff she comes out with would be consider pretty chauvinistic - it really boils down to "Lets give women a hand as they can't win in a fair race". Which is wrong and I know some women who find it offensive.

Remember if you have to lower the bar to let people in then all you end up with less capable candidates.

At 10:48am on 21 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
when a woman gets to the top in politics, she can do one of two things ...

(1) she can turn around and offer a helping hand to her sisters

... like Harriet

or:

(2) she can say "I'm aboard, burn that ladder!"

... like Widders

women tell me they prefer the first approach, and I think they're right

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Her sisters " ....You do make me giggle sosmix

"Women tell me they prefer Harriets approach " ...... don't believe that for a second

Post 9 better some second class citizens than some first class freeloaders and yes men (very few are women Margaret Moran & Hazel Blears excepted obviously) who seem to think that us poor mug punter taxpayers should pay for them to have a luxury lifestyle.

Better some normal people rather than someone who has got on a list by toadying to the party hierarchy.

It would be interesting to see how many current MP's haven't started out like political aides (like Cameron) or Union reps or worked on a QUANGO or other non real world position.

Britain needs more real people with real life experience in Parliament rather that cosseted juniors from the Westminster bubble.

12#

So, Harriet has got to "the top", has she??

What a shining example to the meritocracy she is.

All Hail Harriet!

I'd rather the House of Commons was filled with second class citizens than the third rate politicians who curently fill the benches (when they're not away doing other jobs).

In reply to comments @ #16

What you are describing is a problem with how the two major parties run their ships (and the issue of women-only short lists is part of the problem), not with the electoral system, with the changes you suggest there is a real danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

17. fla
It isn't just Labour: David 'Tony Blair' Cameron... Good grief!

17#

It would depend on whether she was a privately educated vacuous posh-girl, wouldnt it Saga?

There are some strange lefties wound up in political matters - look at Stephanie Flanders (or is it Stephen?) and her sister the lesbian writer in America!!!

Bet they are all onboard Brown's sinking ship.

No, I absolutely and undisputedly think Ann Widdecombe is one strong, sensible and useful woman in politics and after all that is what we need right now and for the next however many years......

Don't just ask me - go out on the streets and ask the public.....

MPs don't count. Whoever gets elected will only get whipped into toeing the line drawn by party leaders who take their orders from heaven knows who.

All candidates should stand as independents, accountable directly and only to the electorate. With a bit of luck, 646 genuinely good and hardworking men and women can form a proper decent governemnt between them.

You may not like what Anne Widdecombe or Dan Hannan think about a particular issue but at least they can think for themselves and aren't afraid to speak their minds in contrast to the servile careerists who dominate political life. The electorate has always had a liking for eccentrics and mavericks down through the years, think of MP's like Leo Abse, Gwyneth Dunwoody, Frank Field, Cyril Smith, Clement Freud, Nicholas Fairbairn and yes even Enoch Powell. Give me a House of Commons filled with such people any day over one stuffed full of party hacks straight off the SPAD production line!

Positive discrimination and quota are both patronising and illogical, they guarantee that you will almost never get the best person for the job.

If political parties are institutionally sexist, racist or any other 'ist' then they need reform form within, but the public desrve better than certain MPs being drafted in purely to make up the numbers and tick the box.

As for Harriet Harperson, real, intellectual feminists such as Germaine Greer must cringe and bury their heads in their hands every time she makes one of her facile 'girls are better thatn boys' comments...

maybe one day harperson will grow up enough to express her personal bugbears in adult terms rather than 'men bad, women good'

Please tell what you say are the gaffes made by Daniel Hannan which are apparently so detrimental to David Cameron and the Conservative Party.
I have heard so many people make this broad brush allegation but none have come up with specifics. I searched and found an article attibuted to this MEP but can find none of the imputations laid at his doorstep.
So please come out with you find so objectionable or leave him out of this elongated discussion.

Positive discrimination in selection processes would not be important, were it not that the antique and broken election system used in the UK means that three quarters of all seats are safe seats, and so the selection meeting is effectively the election.

First past the post elections certainly result in governments that can get things done, in particular they can force through measures which have little support among voters. This may suit politicians and those that lobby them on behalf of special interests, but means that the interests of ordinary voters are often ignored.

Governments often remind public servants like teachers and health workers that public services should be run in a way which serves the public, not the interests of those that work in them. They should be reminded that government itself is a public service, and should also be run to suit the public not just the politicians who do the governing.

#28. At 12:03pm on 21 Aug 2009, puzzling wrote:

"All candidates should stand as independents, accountable directly and only to the electorate. With a bit of luck, 646 genuinely good and hardworking men and women can form a proper decent governemnt between them."

...and with even more luck something might actually get decided once or twice a year, assuming that the coalition hasn't collapsed (again) and new elections been called...

31. At 12:20pm on 21 Aug 2009, b-b-jack wrote:
Please tell what you say are the gaffes made by Daniel Hannan which are apparently so detrimental to David Cameron and the Conservative Party.
I have heard so many people make this broad brush allegation but none have come up with specifics. I searched and found an article attibuted to this MEP but can find none of the imputations laid at his doorstep.
So please come out with you find so objectionable or leave him out of this elongated discussion.


===============

Its quite simple - he decided to go on Fox News (whose reporting of the healthcare reforms is increasingly attracting some quite serious criticisms for its blatant untruths and may finally about to be made to answwer for what many see as a downright irresponsible agenda ) in the USA and lay into the NHS - which was condemned by Cameron himself.

Gaffe may not be the correct term for his actions, however, as i'm quite sure he meant every word.

24#

Dont get me started on things involving bouyancy.

I seem to have a moderator following me around this board who seems to think that the combination of my username and that particular word that rhymes with "boater" are to be mutually exclusive.

He/She lets other people post such words, but me.... no, no. We appear to have a semi-officially protected poster in our midst....

11 sagamix

So you are advocating some sort of female masonic lodge are you? Discrimination is wrong. Be it Harriet's reverse sharia to help rape prosecution by making a woman's word worth twice that of a man or all woman short lists it is wrong.

Both my Grandmother's had good jobs (GP and Teacher) and most of my Great Grandmothers. It's time to grow up. Not all women want to work. Some like the stay at home option. Equality is not achieved by making us all the same. Embrace difference.

#11 sagamix

"when a woman gets to the top in politics, she can do one of two things ...

(1) she can turn around and offer a helping hand to her sisters

... like Harriet

or:

(2) she can say "I'm aboard, burn that ladder!"

... like Widders"

Firstly, I don't think Hattie IS helping her sisters. If anything, the Hattie-effect is entirely working in the opposite direction and putting people off.

We can't legislate for who gets finally elected, but at least the selection stage for prospective candidates should be fair. If equal numbers of men and women were applying, one would expect there to be roughly equal numbers of men and women standing for each party when the election comes. To this extent, we would expect there to be more women in Parliament than at present. But under a fair equal-opportunities system, candidates should be selected on the basis of their suitability - NOT simply because they are a woman.

Hattie's earlier suggestion of appointing a woman to a top job simply to make the numbers more 'equal' smacks of discrimination, the very thing she claims to oppose. There is of course no such thing as 'positive discrimination'.

It would be of small comfort to a suitably qualified man to know he was being discriminated against in order to address some earlier perceived 'imbalance' in the system.

If it is wrong to reject someone because they are a woman, it is also wrong to reject someone because they are a man.

If we want attract more women into politics, then they surely need good role-models. I'm sorry to disagree with you on this point, but I feel Ann Widdicombe is by far the more inspiring candidate. She says what she thinks, talks common sense and believes that people should be selected on their merits.

Hattie on the other hand believes it is acceptable to make discriminatory remarks about men, and seek special treatment for women.

We do need more women in Parliament - but these should be women like Ann, not Hattie.

#31
The thing about Daniel Hannan is that he's one of 'them'. He's a career politician with no real working experience. Strange that I can dismiss him as a career politician when nobody has ever actually voted for the man.

29. JPLotus: Ditto. Amen to that.

@ sagamix, port #11

"(1) she can turn around and offer a helping hand to her sisters

... like Harriet


...women tell me they prefer the first approach, and I think they're right"

Well yes, of course they do. No suprise there. I'm sure they DO prefer a scenario in which powerful women are allowed to "help their sisters" by giving them preferential treatment.

I'm sure many men would prefer that powerful men were allowed to "help their brothers" too, by giving them priority in certain jobs and even excluding women altogether.

Trouble is... in the latter case, it would be "sexist" and "an outrage" and "morally reprehensible", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I think you - and doubtless many others (including Harman) - need to make your mind up, Saga. Either favouring/discriminating against people on grounds of their sex is wrong, or it isn't.

Frankly, i believe it's wrong. Which is why I can't stand Harriet Harman.

Every time a 'real' Tory speaks on anything the party machine has to put up David Cameron to reinterpret what has been said. Should this not give the country pause for thought?

Each and every Tory is deeply politically unattractive. They wanted to destroy the NHS at birth (WC 1951) They closed the hospitals down (too many beds) (Mrs MT) They are the ranting fools in the corner of the club, but because the other lot are so incompetent and so much like Tories themselves the Tory party is high in the polls.

Ann W. has a really genuinely repellent personality, much like many politicians, but like Peter M. we would have to invent her if she did not exist! Why is it that so many politicians fall so far short of what the people want?

#34 is about time that we had some MP/MEP's whom are prepared to speak there minds, rather than be supine to the leadership. Having quatos' will make them even more indebted to that leadership. As there selection will not be open to the consitiuency party as the list will have there name suddenly removed as they need another type of X on the list instead of them. It actually hand more control back to the centre

It should be seen as a good thing that a party has people that are prepared to speak out force a debate on issues in public . As if democracy does not reign supreme in a party then there is no chance when in office. When you end up with an elected dictorship.

Makes me wonder actually, whether Hattie has a view on Lord Minky's prostrate operation... the fact that it is gender related and thereby specifically excludes wimmin should be enough to get her into a bit of a lather.....

#35 moderation on this BBC's is less than even handed and many issues consigned to "off-topic" so that they can be removed. Even one calling for independant moderation has been removed.

"..women tell me they prefer the first approach..."

Is that 70s dinosaurs or real people?

Pull the other one. How many people really vote on the principle of the candidates reproductive organs...really. Naff all. This is not the Victorian age Saga.

Lady HarHar just uses this kind of rubbish to try and cover up for her being a waste of parliamentary space.

#38. At 12:59pm on 21 Aug 2009, Poprishchin wrote:

"Strange that I can dismiss him [Daniel Hannan] as a career politician when nobody has ever actually voted for the man."

Err he was elected by those who bothered to vote in the EU Parliamentary elections in June, in fact many would say (due to the electoral system, used by the EU) he probably has more legitimacy than all those whoo sit in the UK parliament put together!

#37 perhaps Hattie would like the number of servicepersonal killed to be made equal ?

#41 you are very selective with your revisionist version of history.

beleive that Sir WC 1943 was working a much better solution for a NHS model.

Also Callagan and Co wanted to closed beds etc but the unions opposed them which is why we had massive strikes etc in 1970's and the winter of discontent. Hospitals care is not measured by number of beds but by outcomes. Or for that matter which party is going to out spend the other in a spending arms race. Much better to get the system working first.

Much money is wasted in the NHS via arcane ideas and practices. I have seen 3 in my little dealing with the NHS all costing vastly more than doing the job right in the first place.

#46 certainly more legitimancy than the current occupants of NO 10.
Brown or Mendlesum

Laura, am I right in thinking that Tony Blair was told that all-women shortlists were illegal? And isn't "positive discrimination" the same thing?

50. At 1:36pm on 21 Aug 2009, excellentmad_hatter wrote:
Laura, am I right in thinking that Tony Blair was told that all-women shortlists were illegal? And isn't "positive discrimination" the same thing?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, so is keeping innocents peoples's DNA .... but do you think ANYONE in the Labour party ever listens

#46
'Err he was elected by those who bothered to vote in the EU Parliamentary elections'
Er, you vote for parties in the EU elections.

"We will be left with the rossette(sic)-sporting rubbish in the next election because they have nowhere else to go." "second class citizens"
Those descriptions are far to charitable to the "honourable" members who "represent" us in our "democratically - elected" parliament.
With helping hands like Harpersons, who needs a kick in the teeth? 95% of the male population is not part of the "Old Boys Network" either, what gives her the right to talk about me that way? I know the majority of women drivers don't join the motorway at 35mph, don't then spend their entire journey in the overtaking lanes, don't only use their rear view mirrors to check their make-up and don't drive while texting or with their mobiles clamped to their ear. Why is it publically acceptable to make derogatory comments about 'men' which are unqualified, unsubstantiated and unrepresentative of even a sizeable minority? And this from an "Equalities" minister, too.
Another example of New(Lab)speak?
PS. To the Moderator, please reread my post CAREFULLY before you rush to remove it.

In reply to comments @ #52

"Er, you vote for parties in the EU elections."

No more than in the UK elections...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

With the kind of discriminatory rubbish spouted by Harriet Harridan, she is one step away from being suitable for the British National Party. She has the mindless bigotry down pat. Now all she needs to do is spout the same kind of rubbish based around melanin as she does based around testosterone. ^^

'"Er, you vote for parties in the EU elections."

No more than in the UK elections...'

Fair enough but when you vote in a British election you have one candidate per party, not half a dozen.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#11

That's just too sensible :-)

Adjustment to my comment #60

I meant to refer to post #15!!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

positive discrimination

I'm very surprised at the level of opposition to this - it's intended to apply to a lop sided work environment (for example, too few black police or too few women MPs) which is suffering as a result, and it operates as follows ... if there are a number of equally suitable candidates, one gives preference to somebody from the under represented group one is wanting to encourage - it's good from the equality perspective (which is important) but it's even better from the point of view of improving how things are done in this country - you draw people in from a wider base, you will (in time) get a better outcome in terms of quality - all we're doing here is trying to chip away a little bit at the "Old Boys' Club" mentality/system which has let us down so badly - what on Earth is wrong with that? - why can't people see the light?

Harriet Harman

I'm sorry but, to me, she's a tough, principled politician who doesn't deserve all the stick she gets - what can I say?

At 2 sagamix wrote:

"Widdicombe is the Tories' equivalent of Mandelson"

NO NO NO!

Unfortunately, despites 3 attempts, the mods will not let me tell you why not.

dame @ 61

no, you were right the first time - post 11 - you can't go taking it back, now you've said it!

post 15 is just a Motherhood and Apple Pie statement - a.k.a. a meaningless platitude - this particular debate always triggers quite a few of them, I find

#63
re Harriet Harman

Apology accepted! But she certainly does deserve some of the stick she gets!

Miss Widdicombe complains about future MPs as being `second-class citizens' and then pitches herself as a potential judge of Strictly Come Dancing. Is that odd or is that odd?

I very much appreciate Miss Widdicombe when she is confronting some guileless child incapable of facing the harsh realities of life. We desperately need people of good intent to disillusion our youth so all power that particular elbow.

However, this leaves me with the one thought that the only thing she brings to the dancing competition is the word `strict'.

With regard to the composition of the House of Commons it would seem that it has not fully dawned on what for want of a better term one has to call the political leadership of this country that it is the choice of the electorate that matters not what the political leaders wish to determine. What we need at the moment are Members of Parliament determined to clean up Parliament, bring the Executive to heel, reform government from top to bottom and get the economy moving again with value added industry. Whether they be male, female or otherwise is of no concern other than their commitment and ability to do what our country so badly needs.

#63

Positive discrimination can certainly work provided it is done on a level playing field not purely on a quota basis, otherwise it just breeds resentment when unsuitable candidates are advanced purely because of their race or gender.

Why not simply do a 'Totnes' up and down the country, let people stand on their own merits and fight out in the market place. One would do well to reflect that a woman won that exercise in direct democracy and what is more, she did so on her own merits, not by having half of humanity excluded for being men.

"sagamix wrote:
positive discrimination

I'm very surprised at the level of opposition to this - it's intended to apply to a lop sided work environment (for example, too few black police or too few women MPs) which is suffering as a result"

It is flawed because it works on the basis that a working environment has to reflect the wider community - it doesn't. And if your statement was correct then it would mean that men would be hired over women in teaching roles (especially primary) as more women tend to fill those roles then men. However by my understanding that would not be the case.

"it's good from the equality perspective (which is important) but it's even better from the point of view of improving how things are done in this country - you draw people in from a wider base"

Firstly it is not good from an equality perspective as it doesn't give equal rights on a person by person basis but on a group basis. If you take two people from identical backgrounds with identical skills and personalities the woman will be hired over the man for no reason apart from she is a woman! At the personal layer equality has been taken away, so your statement only takes up if you ignore the fact that people are individuals (maybe Labour seem to prefer thinking of voters as mindless drones without personality)

"you will (in time) get a better outcome in terms of quality - all we're doing here is trying to chip away a little bit at the "Old Boys' Club" mentality/system which has let us down so badly - what on Earth is wrong with that? - why can't people see the light?"

So you would also argue that Harriet Harman should not be in the House of Commons based on her connections (I imagine that the house has a higher then expected proportion of members from private schools) and she should step down so some urban housewife takes her place?

Perhaps we should all be stripped of personality and the ability to think so that is would make it easier to assign us into groups?

You might be happy to look at things at the abstract level where our lord and masters move us around like pawns on a chess board but I would rather that we were allowed to think for ourselves and pick candidates based on the candidates themselves not quotas set-up by MPs

#63 saga

"if there are a number of equally suitable candidates, one gives preference to somebody from the under represented group one is wanting to encourage"

With all-female lists, the choice of comparing 'equally suitable' candidates is not available.

Furthermore, it's very unlikely that any two candidates (for any job application) are ever "equally suitable". That's why there are interviews and selection panels. People on a selection panel may not agree with each other, so they may have to 'vote' for their preferred choice.

How would you ever decide, for certain, that two candidates were 'equally qualified', in order that it would be reasonable for so-called 'positive discrimination' to kick into play?

It's a total fabrication! Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

#68 meninwhitecoasts

"Positive discrimination can certainly work provided it is done on a level playing field not purely on a quota basis"

The only purpose of so-called 'positive discrimination' IS to operate on a quota basis, and NOT on a level playing field!

@ sagamix, #63;

"...if there are a number of equally suitable candidates, one gives preference to somebody from the under represented group one is wanting to encourage..."

The problem with the whole theory - and the explanation for this "level of opposition" you seem to be having trouble understanding - is that, most often, there ISN'T a number of "equally suitable" candidates. Whilst it might make a good moral example; the chances of there *actually* being two candidates for any one job who have exactly the same skills, experience and abilities, but one happens to be a man and one happens to be a woman, are pretty remote indeed.

Now, I'm more than happy to see the better candidate get the job - man or woman. I don't mind if a woman gets promoted over me; assuming she's actually better at the job. If she wasn't, it would bother me just much as it would an under-qualified man being given the same treatment,

Problem is, most of the current "Equal" Opportunities legislation - and, for that matter, the rhetoric of Ms. Harman - doesn't seem to take into account the possibility that there sometimes *aren't* any suitable candidates from the under-represented group one wishes to encourage. Sometimes, if a company is full of men in top level positions, it's actually because the men are better at their jobs than any of the women who applied; if, indeed, any applied at all.

Equal Opportunities, however, along with the "Harman Doctrine", seem to take the view that if there aren't an equal number of women (or non-whites, homosexuals, whatever) in an organisation, then this must be down to prejudice which needs to be resolved by simply forcing that organisation to take a certain percentage of these various groups, with no consideration given to whether the people getting the jobs are actually better than the Evil Single White Males(!) who would've gotten them otherwise.

The imbalance you seek to address is not always there. And yet, positive discrimination is very often applied regardless. So while it may be "positive" discrimination to give a woman a job over a similarly-qualified man, *for the woman*, it's still NEGATIVE discrimination for the man. Discrimination is discrimination, at the end of the day. Somebody suffers because of it.

In short, then; the reason for this "opposition" you're seeing - that you claim not to understand - is simply because men don't like being discriminated against any more than women do. And because a lot of women actually agree with the men that this is, indeed, unfair.

And until the likes of Harriet Harman - and yourself, for that matter - stop talking about getting "women" into positions of power, and start talking about simply getting the best PEOPLE into positions of power... I'm afraid you can only expect that opposition to grow stronger as time goes on.

@ saga again, post #65

Regarding this bit;

"post 15 is just a Motherhood and Apple Pie statement - a.k.a. a meaningless platitude - this particular debate always triggers quite a few of them, I find"

The concept of giving the job to the best person for it, regardless of their gender - exercising real equality - is a "meaningless platitude"???

Thanks. I guess that tells us all we need to know about the TRUE attitude of so many of you who claim to be speaking in the name of "equality".

Light blue touchpaper....

I think we should employ more women in senior roles because....they're cheaper!

Retire to safe distance......(White Cliffs now only just visible)

#63

"Harriet Harman

I'm sorry but, to me, she's a tough, principled politician who doesn't deserve all the stick she gets - what can I say?"

Sorry?!...

The one thing she is not is principled, in my opinion - sorry.

Dear Dame Molestrangler

Are you the Dame Cecilia Molestrangler who was once associated with J. Piecemold Gruntfuttock, late of the BBC Gnome Service? That good lady, along with her friend and associate Lady Violent Dodgem-Carr was central to developing the role of women in British comedy. They put aside the tedious travesty of the mother-in-law so beloved of ill-educated and prejudiced male comics by projecting the moral and intellectual traits of educated, middle class femininity.

Would that Mr Peter Simple were around to entertain us on this topic as I feel that a certain political lady now in a senior cabinet post escaped from his column many years ago with the sole intention of leaving us all contorted with the sheer ecstasy of joy I have long associated with the good Dame Cecilia.

#48. IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:

How dare you suggest that my summary of history is in any way revisionist!

WC in 1951 did want to scrap the NHS. WC in 1943 might have had, unimplemented, ideas for a feeble quasi NHS but it was Aneurin Bevan who actually did the deed, and afterwards in 1951 WC wanted to scrap it. The Tories have were against the NHS at it inception and they still are - this is not revisionism it is reality!

The NHS is not well organised, that seems to be true, but I would rather have a party genuinely dedicated to the NHS rather that a half hearted latecomer!

khrystalar @ 73

a MAAP statement is one which nobody in their right mind would disagree with - some examples ...

- I believe in equality of opportunity
- I believe in democracy, not dictatorship
- I believe the government should represent ALL the people
- I believe in what's best for the country
- I believe that with rights, come responsibilities

and of course ... I believe in advancement on merit, picking the best candidate for every position regardless of gender, race, age or the rest of it

these are meaningless platitudes because they're not adding anything - for example, this last one ... we ALL agree with it (I certainly do) but it's then a matter of what to DO about it, isn't it? - and positive discrimination is just one tool in the box

listen, I agree with you (and Distant and Mark and many others) that things like rigid quotas and all women shortlists can do more harm than good - but that (to me) is just the tabloid end of this issue

let me give you a couple of scenarios to consider ...

entrance to top universities

we all know there are many thousands more kids who would benefit from a place (and are able enough to hack it) than there are places available, right? - and a big reason for that is that a disproportionate number of places are filled from the private schools - so, why not say that 90 pc of these places MUST go to state school kids? - that's a quota which I think makes a lot of sense - after all, if you're looking at 2 kids, one has AAB from Harrow, the other BBB from a "bog standard comp" - who do you think is probably brighter? - who deserves the place more? - this is about merit, you see, not some sort of brutal top down enforcement of an artificial outcome

black police officers

the alienation of the police from the black community in certain parts of the country is a big problem, agreed? - right, so it follows that to increase the proportion of the force who are black would be a good and worthwhile thing to do - so, let's not do quotas this time (since it would be inappropriate, there might not be sufficient black candidates of sufficient quality - see the difference with the Uni example? - see how flexible I am?) - no, forget quotas for the force - but we CAN do something - we can look at a different (more subtle) type of PD - we can recognise that just by being black a candidate is bringing something to the party which a white candidate cannot do - and that can then count for something, along with all the other qualities needed, in the selection process - this will give the black candidate a natural advantage ... merited too, because it's a much needed attribute in this particular situation ... BUT will not lead to people being hired who shouldn't be, since they need all the other attributes too

what do you say?

@74 a bit of a damp squib?


"They should select the best person for the Job"@everywhere

They should but as many of you usually say, they aren't. they are selecting a certain type of person that will fit in to Gentlemens Club mentality. A middle class male or virtual male like Ann iwddecombe and Margaret Thatcher who fitted in so well that the Cons. made her leader.

If tbe commons was all Women their would be exactly the same problem.

Politics are sexless....you only need be corrupt. Some perfer to be lied to by a woman other by a man. All owned by corporate interest. Pull up the skirt or pull down the pants and you will find a banker.

#71 distant

Agree my wording was poor - level playing field was in context of having a number of equally able applicants as per post 63.

I am against quotas if an unsuitable candidate if advanced at the expense of better suited applicants just for the sake of meeting a target.

If it means more sensible anti PC ladies like Widders , yes please. If it means more numpties like Harman, Smith and ginger top , no thanks.

#79DH
"virtual male like Ann iwddecombe and Margaret Thatcher who fitted in so well that the Cons. made her leader. "

Good observation which could also apply to Clinton and Merkel but maybe that is their armour to protect themselves against the inevitable accusations of weakness?

"None of the above" should be an option in every election. A re-election should be held if 25% or more voted for "None of the above".

Good evening every body .Well perhaps well try the evening shift as no body would pick up the gauntlet this after noon or earlier on i am referring two my post at 55 .what is needed now is some mps who would tackle the type of problem like i try-ed to illustrate in Anne Whitcomb some one with a little back bone in taking on these type of problems regarding youth scum beating a poor little defenseless little dog just for kicks.thats the latest pranks they are engaged in as was attacking ambulance crews firemen etc a grumpy-old mans point of view of course Any takers?

Picking the best is always difficult. We fail to pick the best men. My impression is that we are even worse at picking not just the best women, but even the half competent ones. I've known several brilliant women, I recall only one who has progressed within her organisation. While able women are often forgotten, many of their totally imcompetent sisters meet no barriers or glass ceilings. I don't know why.

The Italian government claims to be promoting women. Let us hope that our politicians do not navigate into the same difficult waters.

University applicants have been mentioned. How do you select when there are more triple A applicants than places? On a very unrelaible interview where the offspring of the rich will have obvious advantages?

#78 saga

Entrance to top universities - I agree it would be good if more young people had access to university. I'm never sure about this description 'top' universities. Oxford and Cambridge are obviously held in very high esteem, but from an academic pointy of view, are their degrees actually any better than those obtained elsewhere? I suspect it's partly about snobbery.

Similarly, looking at 'A' levels, it should be the grade that counts, not the type of school. That said, some schools will have a better track record than others in getting higher grades.

Personally, I think there is probably too much emphasis on just looking at exam results. Studying at school and studying at university are quite different. Someone who did not thrive in a school environment when younger could in fact do much better once they go to university (assuming they can get in). We also forget that young people do change in their outlooks as they grow older!

I would not like to see quotas of different groups of people, or quotas for students from different types of school. Much better to have a holistic admission policy where potential for growth is valued alongside previous exam results

Black police officers - I think Police Forces need to spread the net as wide as possible. If they are not getting as many black applicants, they need to ask why not? Is something putting people off? Entry requirements for joining the police are (rightly) stringent. The standard must be the same for everyone, irrespective of race, religion, gender etc - but consideration does need to be given as to how to attract candidates from across the whole community.

I think it is probably a mistake to pick on any profession and assume there will always be a proportional ethnic mix, or an equal gender ratio. It may be that certain types of job appeal more (or less) to certain sections of the community. For example, I suspect that there are more male plumbers than female. Does this mean women are being discriminated against, or is it just that fewer women want to be plumbers?

#81 meninwhitecoats

"level playing field was in context of having a number of equally able applicants"

Yes, I think this is the real issue. We can't just look at an organisation and make a judgement based on the ethnic/gender ratios. We need to broaden the range of people applying in the first place.

Personally I don't like forms that ask you state your gender, religion, ethnicity etc. It's no one's business and I strongly object to being asked. 'Equal opportunities' means having no regard for those issues.

At No. 34 goldceasar, it is Fox News who are making alarming reports regarding the NHS, you are saying so youself, not Daniel Hannan.
As I read his comments, he said that if he were to start a health service today, it would be different as times have changed. I do not see that as embarassing David Camerson or the Conservative Party but it may do depending on your political viewpoint.

wolfie @ 86

University applicants have been mentioned. How do you select when there are more triple A applicants than places?

this is actually an area where positive discrimination would work very well - what we should do is rank A grades from bad schools higher than those from good schools - we could even call them something different, such as ...

an A from a state school is an A
an A from a private school is a B
an A from a top public school is a C

thus:

ABB from Harrow Comp is ABB
AAB from Harrow Grange is BBC
AAA from Harrow is CCC

... which, as you can see, completely reverses the order of things - before the adjustment, the public school was top and the state school was bottom, but it's quite the opposite after the calibration - this, I think, would start to distinguish quite well between candidates for the good universities ... sort the "wheat from the chaff" as it were

Sagamix #86

Ace idea. But, there are so many triple A students, I can imagine that no public school candidates would make it into the 'top universities'.

That might well be a very good thing, but our politicians would never allow it.

If they did, we'd have a more discriminating grading system within a year. And that might be an even bigger improvement.

saga 90

Your reflex hatred of anything you perceive to be Tory is starting to eat into the common sense section of your brain. Your comedy A-level re-grading scheme is slightly amusing, but you reveal yourself (yet again) to be a refugee from the '70s by forgetting that most people do four or more A-levels these days.

Just to drag you back to reality, while this year is unusual, as we all know, in general there are some issues about getting onto university courses that you need to understand.

Over-subscription of courses, most importantly, is not evenly distributed across the subjects. In the subjects that really matter, maths, sciences, engineering, modern languages, over-subscription is not a big problem. These courses are hard, demanding and, to a greater extent than you seem to appreciate, self-selecting. Some courses, indeed, have had to close due to under-subscription. Your efforts to lower some student's grades on the basis of their educational background would have very limited effect.

In the whole host of weaker, easier, much less important degree subjects, where there are generally quite limited employment prospects, university simply turns keen, if slightly incompetent, 18-year-olds into jaded, unemployable, broke twenty-one-year-olds. This, of course, is the area where over-subscription is a problem. But let's consider the effect of your cute little measure. The public school pupils fall to the back of the queue, don't get into the courses, and instead compete, probably successfully, against the non-university 18-year-olds for those jobs that are available. On the other hand, the poorer kids get to go to do soft subjects at university and then join the ranks of the graduate unemployed at age 21.

Naturally I exagerate and generalise in order to make my point, but, in fact, your measure actually does a relative favour to the public school pupils, while tending to increase unemployment in two sectors of the relatively under-advantaged young. Good one, Sagamix!

JRP @ better late than never ...

you've gone tangential on me again, haven't you?

4 A levels ... fine ... that's not really a transforming point though, is it?

I'm mainly talking, btw, about the "proper" universities - the top tier (there's 4 of them) and the next to top tier (that's another 10) - the others aren't of no importance but they don't frame the picture

and (dig this!) we achieve BOTH of the following:

(1) we get some sanity back into the grading system
(2) we pretty much kill the private opt out, but without banning it

now if that's not a Win/Win, what the devil is?

MP's should be selected on skill and experience. selecting them for Gender, race, sexual orientation is absurd and will only mean the country is poorer for it. If all the most talented candidates are ethnic women then parliament should be full of them! but, they should not be there if they dont merit their place. appointing incapable people will only create stereo types and hurt future candidates for change. Positive Racism breeds Racism and resentment!

Go on Annie! Speak your Mind! unless of course your thinking is in tune with alan duncan.. then please dont...

saga

Well, I have a horrible feeling we would argue about which universities are in the top four (I have a niggling feeling you would like to know which one I went to, so you could wind me up by eliminating it!).

I'm also amused about how you might try to match up your selective regrading policy to your equality agenda - looks like some will indeed be more equal than others.

Here's my experience. I went to an ordinary public sector school, and then to a very famous college, reading one of the subjects that had made it famous (and still does). (Clue - have you ever seen The Ipcress File?) There were, believe it or not, 190 students in my year. It won't surprise you if I tell you that about half of them were from public schools. So I ended up with a good knowledge of the different styles of school education that were available. One of the things that became clear was that a lot of the public school people had been crammed. They had known enough about their A-level subjects to get very decent grades, but they forgot it all ten minutes after the exams and had no fundamental understanding of what they were studying. By the end of the first year, about forty of them had been weeded out - they had no chance of doing well and it was, in fairness, a cruelty to keep them on the course.

What I didn't appreciate until I became a postgrad at the same college was that this was far from a thing specific to my year. It happened every year, had done for twenty years before I arrived, still happens now. Much the same happens elsewhere too, really almost throughout the respectable end of university education, as I discovered later.

So here's my conclusion.

Public school pupils are frequently crammed.
They get better grades at A-level than otherwise they would - essentially they are flattered by their grades.
The benefits of this, particularly for less able students, are ultimately significantly less than you might think.
If they go to university to do a "hard" subject, they regularly get found out and (often) thrown out - which is actually quite a painful experience.
University departments are well aware of the problem; they effectively expand their first year groups so as to "engineer" the "right" number of students for the second and third years.

The only people who are hurt by this are the crammed students and their parents, both groups being exploited by the public schools. The parents, of course, are exploited financially, often to the very edge of their available means.

And here's something I found out later. There are lots of public schools, but there are rather fewer public school owners. The schools, with some notable exceptions, are run in conglomerates. What's more, even though they are registered charities at the front end, at the owners' end they are remarkably cash-generative and profitable. So, to summarise, public schooling is a largely exploitative business engineered for profit.

So, here's what I would do (because I hate exploitation).

I would bend the A-level examination system back round to the point where it tests understanding as well as knowledge. There are ways to do this but no space here to describe. (My old maths teacher, who is a very wise man, once suggested maths oral exams as a means of addressing this sort of point.) The result would be to reduce any genuine public school bias in the examination system by discriminating against cramming.

As well, I would, very gradually, remove charitable status from the schools and introduce VAT on school fees, with the express purpose of reducing profitability in the education industry.

Taken together, these measures wouldn't finish off the public school system, but they would tend to take out the worst aspects of it.

Hi Laura

I am glad that iy is you here, u r a cutie!

Andy, California, ex squaddie, usa

Hi, Laura:

In characteristically unapologetic terms, the Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe not only pitches herself as a potential candidate for Strictly Come Dancing in an interview in Total Politics magazine but she also takes aim at the party's way of choosing its prospective MPs.

I am not surprised with the comments of Ann Widdecombe and the commentary that she released....

NB: I am not affiliated and/or associated with any political party in the United Kingdom; and, I am not advocating for a General Election in the United Kingdom....

=Dennis Junior=

Good morning laura .Many thanks for allowing my post regarding dog treatment ,But sadly two no avail.A NATION OF ANIMAL LOVERS AND SHOP KEEPERS. Was once the norm?
I would have thought that saga or Susan croft or fairly open might have sprang into the debate regarding the beating of a little defenseless dog
for self satisfaction by a group of mind less individual's but no this incident was allowed to pass quietly like a ship in the night so for any one who might be interested put ugly pet attack into bing sad sad day for animal lovers.everywhere.
Slightly of subject but worth consideration thanks.

PS It might be of interest to take the camera out into the street and photograph the graffiti painted shop fronts and then over to uglys owner and ask for her opinion i am sure she would be willing to voice her opinion she just might have something to say regarding the mps in her district.

I'm puzzled.

Harriet H seems keen to get more women MPs by "protecting" their access to safe seats.

Meanwhile, several of the broadsheets suggest that her husband, Jack Dromey, is being lined up for a safe seat not too far from their joint home.

So how does that "fit", Harriet?

Of course, Dromey was famously the Treasurer of the Labour Party who didn't know that money in the accounts was based on "loans" not gifts. Maybe he's being lined up for a role in the HMG Treasury team...