'Positive action', not 'positive discrimination'

Not sure if I'm totally enamoured(spelling?) with this policy.
What if there are men that are simply better qualified and all women shortlists are imposed for the sake of 'equality'?
Doesn't seem very equal on the public who have to deal with a potentially less effective MP.
Saying this, I'm all for female MP's, providing they are up for the task and are qualified to do the job!

This strikes me as a bit of word twisting on behalf of Cameron.

Wise man is David Cameron. He realises that women in politics do not put personal ambition above conviction and a passion to help and to change things. Women do not start wars (Thatcher merely came to the aid of the invaded British Falklanders, laudable).

I have trust and faith that DC will do his utmost for the country and in trying to recruit more women he is showing a greater grasp and insight of what is needed than .... can't even bring myself to say the name.....Brown and his save the world entourage.

Big mistake Dave!

Isn't this what Labour tried in Blaenau Gwent before the last election and look what happened there!

Does this mean we will now have a complete rewrite of history along the lines of Harriet Harman's latest invective on these issues?

So it will now be; The Sisters Grimm, Big Sister, A Woman for all Seasons, The Woman who fell to Earth, The Woman on the moon, Band of Sisters, Seven Husbands for Seven Sisters, The Husband of Frankenstein, Desperate Househusbands..

And so we will go on until the entire country has been de-gendered and de-sexed and we are all paid exactly the same amount no matter how hard we work and this whole crazy, dystopian newlabour experiment at social, political, racial and gender engineering has completely and utterly numbed our senses.

They are leading us into a minefield of mind control and somehting needs to be done about it.

Call an election.

Just as well we didn't do this in 1940.... Disqualifying Churchill because he was a fat, white, aristocratic male who therefore ticked no 'minority' boxes would have been rather unfortunate.

It also ignores the Tories most succesful PM of the modern times: Margaret Thatcher, who needed no positive discrimination to get where she got.

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

This is nonsense - the best candidate should be put forward, regardless of their gender.

Normal MO for "off the mark" blogs is to not comment (yes I know I am doing just that).

Maybe we should guide Mr.Robinson, by only commenting on more pertinent matters of the day (not to undermine the importance of equality in the house).....

It will be a good measure of how this blog represents the issues of the day AND the importance that the active community places on them...

Apologies if this is a little "Grandma sucking eggs"..... I agree with other posters that over the last few days, some key discussion areas have been overlooked.

Nick,

Is there a blog missing? I read the first one timed at 10.25am telling us
all about the Speakers Conference.

Then I read the second blog timed at 11.28am telling us what Cameron had
said.

Must admit that I was drawn to it by the caption under your picture on the Politics page.

"David Cameron to impose all-women shortlists".

So the missing blog surely enlightens us to what Brown said does it not?

To help you out I did hear this bit from Brown (See how helpful I am?)

"Labour would increase support for lesbian,gay,bisexual and transgender
candidates at the next general election".

Why? It should be best person for the job.End of.

What is so wrong with "best person for the job"? Any kind of exclusion on grounds of race, gender, religion, etc. should be outlawed.

All men are created equal......but some women are more equal? Where is the equality? So sex discrimination is alright if it favours women? I think that this is a nonsense. The best person for the job after all that is what the country deserves. Not the best available woman: simply the BEST.

"From January, Tory HQ will take control of the short-listing of candidates...."

This is very disturbing. Not only from the positive discrimination aspect (to me discrimination is discrimination, regardless of how you qualify it), but also from the appearance that DC is directing this from Tory HQ. I believe Cameron was quite adamant at the Conservative party conference that power was going to be devolved or cascaded down to the local level wherever possible (in contrast to NewLabour's centralisation of power, which has been so disastrous).

Has this policy changed? Pity you didn't pick up on this Nick and get us an answer. As a Conservative by inclination, I would be deeply disappointed if DC was backtracking on those promises he made.

The dictionary definition of discrimination is that it is treating a person differently based on the class or group to which the person belongs rather than on that person's merit.

So if Mr Cameron does have such lists, there is no doubt that he is discriminating no matter what spin he chooses to put on it.

Surely, as with any competition, the job should go to the best candidate and not to fill any particular quota? To deny better candidates a chance to shine because they don't fit the required profile of sex, age, race etc etc. is appalling.

We have plenty of anti-discrimination legislation in this country but it seems that it can be ignored when it doesn't suit.

Shame really, I was going to vote Conservative at the next election, but not now.

So "positive discrimination" is only "positive action" if you're a mainstream political party. Yet if Nick Griffin said on Question Time this week that the BNP was not in favour of "racial discrimination" but was in favour of "racial action", all hell would break loose. Same old double dealing and double standards. What about progression on merit ? Caledonian Comment

Tokenism doesnt work. NL have proved that.

If Cameron thinks he can reinvent this particular wheel successfully, he's a mug.

Oh dear, more discrimination.. I thought the Conservatives would be above this sort of politically correct tittle tattle. If apply for a job, or a role on a committee etc I expect to be competing against others on my education, skills, talent, experience, competence and general suitability for the role. I don't expect colour, gender, sexuality, disability, country of birth (so long as I am legal in that country), number of heads I have etc to take any part in the selection process. So called positive action or all male/female/black/gay shortlists are discriminatory. Certain groups may crave equality in the workplace; more women on the board, more male teachers in primary schools for example but instead of dicriminating against different groups, the question should be asked 'why are no men going into teaching, women into high powered jobs etc'. The reason this isn't asked is because the powers that be are afraid of the answers and would rather hide these facts and instead fiddle the recruitment processes so that they get what they see as a representative group on any given forum.

Man, woman, dog, cat, red, blue - none of it matters as they all follow the same misguided and failing Economic policies.

It's the entire philosophy of Government that needs changing, not simply re-arraning the curtains and tablecloth - it's the house that's out of order.

Still - I suppose it gives Nick a job and the reactionaries on this blog something to argue pointlessly about.

Discrimination whichever way you look at it.

Worked soooo well for Lab too.

Whilst I agree with the ends (more female MPs) I can't see that those ends justify these means. This is intentional discrimination (positive or otherwise is meaningless, utterly subjective) - if a man now wants to be a conservative MP (strange in itself) he will be discriminated against in terms of his sex - how is that acceptable?

It seems to me is being looked at from the wrong end - the real problem is the lack of women wanting to go into politics in the first place - which is surely due to the way that politics in this country is conducted and viewed by the population at large. If I were a woman I would find this insulting as the implication is that they are inherently incapable of being judged as suitable on equal terms. This policy hightlights that either DC thinks that women are incapable (doubtful) or is a tacit agreement that his party is hopelessly and incurably sexist (more likely).

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.

I see it is all men who come to the fore throwing bricks at the suggestion of more women in politics!

You are all just proving that criticism is usually born out of envy.

Could it be the young charismatic Dave for whom most women will vote is the object of your criticism? Methinks it is.

Criticism of Brown is constructive criticism because he is a total wally who picks his nose and women - no women I have EVER met - would vote for him. Well unless they are hippie, liberal or immigrant.

Sounds like an incentive for local parties to get their candidates in place before January then.

With just over 6 months before a likely election date I'd be surprised if that any of the main 3 parties haven't chosen their candidate for seats where they believe they have a chance to win. Will these imposed candidates therefore be fighting hopeless causes? If so, then this definitely is a PR exercise only.

Any sort of "positive discrimination" (I'll call a spade a spade, unlike Mr Cameron) immediately opens up the person who gets the post to accusations that they aren't actually up to the task, but only got in because they fit the required profile.
Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister on merit, any prospective MP should do so also.

6. At 12:05pm on 20 Oct 2009, Peter_Sym wrote:

"Just as well we didn't do this in 1940.... Disqualifying Churchill because he was a fat, white, aristocratic male who therefore ticked no 'minority' boxes would have been rather unfortunate. "

Isn't that a little presumtious and absolutist? Aren't you assuming that because Churchill got us through the war he was the only option?
Maybe there were many people that could have achieved exactly what he did - I mean don't forget he didn't actually fight did he?

I seem to recall he spent a lot of his time eating extravagant dinners whilst the rest of the country survived on rations.

- What a hero.

DC needs to very careful here.
All women short lists will always carry the doubt that, if elected, she is only the best women for the job, not necessarily the best candidate. This may be totally unjust for the women concerned. The only way to avoid it is for women to have to establish their credentials and therefore their right to the job by facing open competition against all-comers.

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

@ Mark_WE, post #2;

"This strikes me as a bit of word twisting on behalf of Cameron."

Indeed. Not much different from what we've come to expect from Labour, particularly during the Blair/Campbell years, huh? If Joe Public is likely to object to what you're doing... heck, just do it anyway but call it something else. Thus, "Discrimination" becomes "Action" - there you are, much better, right?

(Note to myself: Must remember, if I ever get short of cash, I can just defraud my employers and then tell the police I was merely engaging in a "Positive Cashflow Relocation Exercise". I'm pretty sure THAT isn't a crime of any sort!)

A pity, 'cos I was starting to gain a little respect for Cameron over these past few weeks; both for his hard-line stance on the MPs Expenses issue, and for the Conservatives' honesty about impending cuts at their recent conference.

But if he's not only announcing that he intends to engage in sexist selection practices, but also insulting my intelligence by assuming that he can just change the name of what he's doing... well, I'm not so sure.


@ flamepatricia, post #3;

"...women in politics do not put personal ambition above conviction and a passion to help and to change things."

Hmm... your real name isn't "Harriet", by any chance, is it?

No, not all women are perfect and yes, many women DO put ambition above all else. Your view is outrageously sexist and belongs in the dark ages. When you feel like joining the rest of us in the 21st Century, do let us know.

Seriously; you're living proof of WHY Cameron is making a big mistake, here. We need to keep people like you out of politics; not encourage them by giving them jobs regardless of whether they're competent - and fair-minded - enough to do them.

Perhaps Cameron should get Hattie in as a Special Advisor :-)

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

#2 Mark_WE

Are you joking?

The electorate want a referendum on political reform because the establishment doesn't work and Dave comes up with this idea that isn't really an idea anyway because he qualifies it with a 'might' (as with most of his ideas).

If he didn't twist everything so much to begin with, you 'might' have a point.

Agree with the general consensus, bad move.

Let hope he listens to sense and drops this before too much damage is done.

#16 Fubar

Since when has David Cameron really meant anything, Fubar?

It's another cheap headline grabber, oh and look, it's even made Nick Robinson's blog and we're all posting about a big 'if/could/maybe'. He hasn't commited to it like everything else he comes out with.

The Conservatives are New Labour mkII.... the ModCons.

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

23

Patricia

Noone is throwing bricks at the suggestion of more women in politics. It is the method of getting it done that is offensive, to men and women (or should be).

Noone should be given any advantage, you stand and are elected on merit, not gender.

#23 flamepatricia

For once we agree on something.

I think there really needs to be more women in politics as well as many other areas of life. It's simply not fair that women are so poorly represented, and as you suggest, women will provide some much needed balance.

Discrimination is discrimination.

Just as free speech is free speech, and torture is torture.

There seems to be a depressing unwillingness, amongst politicians of all parties, to argue from first principles (call this a 19th century classic liberal tradition if you wish).

Since our greatest peace-time Prime Minister was a woman I'm all in favour of more Conservative female MPs. But not this way.

To answer those who respond 'the best person for the job': This might apply when the post involves some special skill, but as politicians require no skill whatsoever and almost anybody who can turn up and dress soberly most of the time and above all has no principles can do the job I don't think 'the best person for the job' applies!

Might as well give it to one of your friends then - funny that as that is what happens! The system is corrupt and male centric. Having women doing the job does not change to problem of the corrupt first past the post system where a very few people actually choose who sits in parliament.

More and wider participation is what is needed and far fewer professional politicians. Let us halve the number, enable voter recall have proportional representation, fixed terms and a two term maximum for all politicians both national and local. Let the people decide! We need and deserve a constitution!

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

Just a thought....

Expenses claimed by career politicians who know nothing but working for the party......Central Office imposed lists?

Leading to more of the same.

Let the constituencies chose who they would like to represent then not who CO impose.

Baroness Varsi is an exemplary Tory woman politician. Had to get that one in.....

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

Come on Cameron, I expect better of you than this nonsense. It is Labour which is supposed to engage in social engineering of this sort - the Tories are supposed to select candidates purely on merit.

Don't forget, we are the only party to have so far produced a female Prime Minister - because she was the best of the best, not because she was a woman!

Mr Cameron disappoints me once again....stop pandering to the politically correct and select on only one criteria...merit! If the present crop of women in parliament...jacqui smith, harriet harman, yvette cooper estelle morris, tessa jowell and not forgetting glynis kinnock (oh what happened to her, only lasted long enough to get a seat in the Lords and is then replaced!)are anything to go by, women have not exactly been the cream of MPs.

Positive discrimination,or this soi disant ''positive action'' was discredited 20 years ago.
Why a party which argues for competition and individual responsibilty,should take this up is baffling.

Sure,let women light up the wrong night,but not as a second best option.

P.S. Is it true that David Wiltshire is to have a sex chamge ??

It may be just the way I am looking at this - but the blog says the quota will be imposed on those "which have YET to choose their parliamentary candidate."
Surely this means that they will now have to speed up their selection process and ensure that the right candidate is selected for the right resasons.
Pretty good thinking on DC's part

It's one thing to force it down the throats of party activists, it's a different thing entrirely to force it down the throuats of the voters. These people forget, we the voters are entitiled to have the best posssible person, regardless of what colour rosette they flaunt, to represent OUR interests in parliamanet. Now, where's that BNP manifesto?

"CockedDice wrote:

With just over 6 months before a likely election date I'd be surprised if that any of the main 3 parties haven't chosen their candidate for seats where they believe they have a chance to win. Will these imposed candidates therefore be fighting hopeless causes? If so, then this definitely is a PR exercise only."

A lot of previously safe seats are now available because of the expenses row, so they might not be hopeless causes.

23. At 12:37pm on 20 Oct 2009, flamepatricia wrote:
I see it is all men who come to the fore throwing bricks at the suggestion of more women in politics!
******************************

We're not throwing bricks FP, we're asking Dave to be careful.
It would do the cause of women no good at all if they are elected to Parliament with the 'I'm only the best women' tag hanging over her.
As several have said on here, the best candidate is what we want. If that is also a woman that's great.

"Positive" discrimination is wrong. It is merely, as it says, another form of discrimination.

Equality can't exist with any form of discrimination. Adding it in any way, even if it is seen as "re-balancing" diminishes equality in the long run.

extremesense 32

"The electorate want a referendum on political reform because the establishment doesn't work..."

If you can, please give us a reference to any evidence (e.g. a respectably compiled opinion poll) of the public asking for a referendum on political reform. I haven't seen such a thing anywhere, but maybe you look in different places from me?

Brown accused of staffing Cabinet with ‘white Scottish men’


Brown faced tough questioning from Labour backbencher Parmjit Dhanda, who pointed out that before Mr Brown became PM two years ago there were two ethnic minority members of the Cabinet.

“There are none now, yet there are four white, Scottish men. Do you think this an acceptable state of affairs?” Mr Dhanda asked.

Roll On 2010 - Things can only get better.

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.

"He called this "positive action" not "positive discrimination"."

That is because was talking bull..er..waste

I agree with Rob Pudney @25. This is a dangerous and technically illegal path that Dave is treading. Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister in spite of, not because of her gender; in truth, she was more of a man than anyone else in her Cabinets!

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

Of course its discrimination.

And another sign of the lack of true democracy in the country.

Labour did this and conveniently arranged exceptions in discrimination laws to get round it and now it seems the conservatives are buying into the same farce.

Any chance of having a "none of the above" option at all future elections?
Fat chance, we're given no option, and vote for the option we dislike least to prevent someone we really abhor getting in... and then they call it a "mandate".
Is it any wonder people don't vote or are disillusioned by the entire political system?

I'm all for more women in parliament, but it should be on merit only, in the same way as anyone else.

Then again if Caroline Flint was standing using her expenses paid glam photos (on merit the best looking MP for a long time)she'd definetly get my vote, if only to raise local issues with her in a constituency surgery!

Very juvenile I know but with a grain of truth methinks.

I know this may be a radical idea but what about "All local" shortlists ?

How about, instead of parachuting whatever Central Office clown into the seat the parties actually got local people to choose the local candidate they'd like to represent them in Parliament ?

Personally, I'm sick of all of the usual Party candidates being chosen to represent our area and as such I think a new rule should be brought in so that only people who are eligible to vote in an election are able to stand in the election. Therefore only residents of a constituency would be able to stand for election in that constituency and all of the central office candidates would have to go back to their own areas and stand for election there.


As far as all-women shortlists are concerned, I'd hate to be one of the women benefiting from this policy as she'll be forever labelled a party stooge that was unable to get elected on her own merits.

Discrimination is discrimination and can never be positive as it always results in someone being unfairly discriminated against.

34#

Who am I to say? The electorate will judge him and that is that.

Lots of other events that could happen in the meantime though.

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

It is the voters that will decide.

The Tories are well behind Labour on equal representation, so Cameron wants to speed the process up.
He gets dumped on by Tory supporters and APBLs for being discriminatory and criticised by Labour supporters and the rest for being a headline-grabber, ignoring the fact that Labour have gone through this already. The fact that Labour made some bad selections had nothing to do with their gender. The pool may have been made smaller but the talent is out there.

Sometimes positive or affirmative action is necessary to speed up a legitimate process which has been allowed to stagnate. It's not quite the same as parachuting the offspring of party grandees into safe seats. That is unacceptable.

Have those who 'want to see more women in the Tory Party' got any other ideas? Or do you wait another decade before things start to even themselves out??

Shame that on the same day, in front of the same committee, one Gordon Brown has been accused of discrimination towards non white, non Scottish members of his own cabinet by a member of his own party.

Naturally the great ditherer blustered his way through a reply including the incompetent attorney general who is incapable of even hiring a cleaner without causing a fuss.

Nice on Gordo, nice one son, nice one Gordo, Let's have another one.

ANd while you're at it: Call an election.

so firstly any one wishing to represent a party in any upcoming general election has to obey party rules first and foremost above what the voters want or whats good for the country.
so basicly we the voters are been given less choice and the country suffers due in main to party politics.
i would have thought if a person so wanted to represent their area then the wishes and needs of their area should take presidence above party, group,or general mob.

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

So, in order to get a statuatory number of women and candidates from ethnic communities the constituency committees will have to be a statuatory mix of these categories, which if population percentages are used will mean that in every ten members there will be 4 non ethnic men ,4 non ethnic women, plus 1 male and 1 female from the ethnic communities. We may then end up with ( assuming there is no external pressure ) 50% women and 50% male MPs from non ethnic communities and none from ethnic communities. To overcome this, non selected (democratically) ethnic community candidates will have to be shoehorned into post against the wishes of the majority. Is this any improvement on the current system of having constituency committee chosen candidates , hopefully chosen by majority.

I wouldn't mind if it were not for the main argument against it.

Harriet Harmon - Low intellectual HP coupled to 70's sixth form feminism. Who can forget the "court of public opinion" - AKA mob rule a comment that a should know better before event thinking let alone putting mouth into gear

Jaqui Smith - Big State - Big Brother ID card cheer leader.

Margaret Beckett - Single Farm Payment fiasco and tried to justify claiming for a second home (in her constituency) while living in a grace and favour flat and renting out her additional London property (not required while living in grace and favour flat)

Can't think of a Blair Babe I would trust to open a garden fate let alone run a department

#28 Hayemaker

Ah, yes, but isn't Legg imposing retrospective limits on claims?????

#40 "These wars in the middle east are deemed necessary now because of the danger to the British people here on THIS island - a danger perpetrated by our own stupid government's actions in stirring them all up whilst joined at the hip to America."

Its off topic (and I agree with you on the Falklands) but you might want to remind yourself of timelines. 62 Brits (including my neighbour) BEFORE we were 'joined at the hip' with the US in Iraq. An Al Qu'eda cell was arrested in Leicester in 1999 but went almost un-reported because virtually no-one had heard of Al Qu'eda then. The "justification" for the Madrid train bombing issued by Al Qu'eda was vengance for the Spanish crusades in Grenada in the 13th century not Iraq so I can guarantee that there is SOMETHING in our past (and I'd start with the balfour declaration or the partition of Kashmir) that could be used to 'justify' anything these people perpetrate. The fact that the 7/7 bombers trained in Afghanistan is all the justification I need for us fighting there.

At the risk of being modded off.

The concensus appears to be poitive discrimination is still discrimination and therefore per se wrong.

Now how about truancy, childrens tsar and education perhaps that is a pertinent topic.

#52 jrperry

Labour promised to reform the House of Lords with a free vote at the last election - they got in. Since then, the banking crisis and expenses scandal have increased this appetite and lead to the creations of organisations like Vote for Change campaign.

According to YouGov who conducted a poll on behalf of the Electoral Reform Society their results were thus....

Among people intending to vote for the Lib Dems, the poll found 9% saying a referendum would make them "much more likely" to vote Labour and 21% "somewhat more likely" to do so. Only 4% would be put off. Among voters in the key Labour-held marginal seats, 17% would be more likely to vote Labour if the referendum were to happen, and 5% would be put off. Nationally 17% are more likely, 6% less likely.

Labour supporters would also be reaffirmed in their support for the party, with 30% feeling more likely to support Labour and 6% being put off to some extent. The only category of voters a referendum would put off would be those currently intending to vote Conservative, and that only by the small margin of 8%-6%.

Funny that bit about the Conservatives, you're a Conservative supporter aren't you?

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

#70

the list of blundering Blair babes is longer than that..

Have you forgotten:

Ruth Kelly who was reponsible for making a fist of the launch of HIPs; rushed through to ensure Tony's 'legacy'

Patricia Hewitt booed by the nurses conference while health secretary and responsible for the Rover fiasco during a general election (an issue that is still being swept under the rug)

Estelle Morris the uneducated education secretary who resigned after the A level marking fiasco to name but one of her numerous bloopers while in office.

Yvette Cooper - the woman who has turned the expression 'the right thing to do' into a catch all apologia for any incompetence.

Hazel Blears...need I say more?

Call an election.

From the BBC article

"Conservative leader David Cameron has said his party could introduce women-only shortlists"

From Nick's article:

"David Cameron is warning his party that he will impose all-women shortlists"

Is it just me that thinks there is a huge difference between "could introduce" and "will impose"?

Nick, just what IS your agenda?

extremesense 74

Yes, I am a Conservative supporter.

The one thing your post does not reveal, and nor does an admittedly very quick look at the ERS website, is, what, exactly, this referendum is supposed to be on.

# 65. TheBlameGame:

"The fact that Labour made some bad selections had nothing to do with their gender. The pool may have been made smaller but the talent is out there."

Logic would suggest that on average, a smaller pool of talent is likely to lead to the best in that pool being of lower quality than would happen with a larger pool (assuming the same average and a similar statistical spread of abilities - and the best candidates being selected).
So statistics would suggest we might end up with even worse MPs...if that's possible.

Surely the solution is working to remove the barriers that mean some demographics consider politics less desirable, not trying to ensure the reduced numbers that currently want to be involved are given advantageous treatment.

All women shortlists are a turn off for the majority of women voters.

How many times must they be told that women do not always trust their own sex to make the right judgements on their behalf.

If they put up the right calibre of candidate it doesn't matter what sex or creed they are. If they are seen as the right candidate for that constituency they will be elected by the people.

After the MP's fiasco of the last few months more people will be looking at the background and exoerience of their future MP and not at their colour or sex or any other orientation they may have.

Political parties could be in trouble if they insist on forcing inferior choices upon us again. We will just go elsewhere

After all the country is in such a mess the more choice of parties in parliament the better if it gives us a better standard of MP.

As expected there's a hubub about 'positive discrimination is still discrimination' and 'women should succeed on merit' but the big question remains unanswered. Is canidate selection a meritocracy in modern politics and if not, what should we do about the 'white male' positive discrimination that must exist as a result?

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

#70 rcemortimer

You have forgot the best one - Caroline Flint - she was only there for window dressing.

Missed the mark on this one for me, has Cameron, and shot himself in the foot instead. We've had enough of this nonsense already under Labour.

"extremesense wrote:

Among people intending to vote for the Lib Dems, the poll found 9% saying a referendum would make them "much more likely" to vote Labour and 21% "somewhat more likely" to do so. Only 4% would be put off."

That would have 30% supporting, and 4% of people put off - so the vast majority of Lib Dems wouldn't change their vote to Labour even if they are promised a referendum that would benefit their party.

"Among voters in the key Labour-held marginal seats, 17% would be more likely to vote Labour if the referendum were to happen, and 5% would be put off. Nationally 17% are more likely, 6% less likely."

So again the vast majority of people have no opinion on the referendum.

"Funny that bit about the Conservatives, you're a Conservative supporter aren't you?"

Think about this logically - of the three main parties which one is (currently) most likely to win the election under first past the post? Which party is the party that doesn't want to have a referendum on AV?

Oddly enough it is the same party both times.

The AV system that Labour wants to bring in would benefit the Labour and Lib Dem parties (as both parties are Centre Left you would expect their voters to list the other party as their second choice)

The party that opposes the vote is the one that is most likely to lose out - odd that!

Personally I would rather have FPTP than AV - as I don't consider AV to be a fair voting system (potentially you could end up with the situation where someone wins the election after being the first choice of a small percentage of the voters beating a candidate who had 49.9% of the first choice votes!)

If we are going to go for PR than it is far fairer to decide the election based on percentage of votes cast (i.e. if an area has 100 MPs and a party wins 10% of the votes they get 10 MPs)

#70 & #76

I don't think that those individuals and issues are an argument against women MPs, more an example of the incompetence of this government, let's face it their male counterparts haven't exactly covered themselves in glory & come on, forced to resign twice and unelected Mandelson is now probably their most influential member.
And people wonder why people are disillusioned with politics and politicians.

andy @ 82

glad to see you haven't abandoned your stance of making totally meaningless postings

I was just congratulating my good friend David Cameron on a rare, progressive sounding policy ... that not allowed?

okay maybe only for 2 seats, however it's a start and it's good to hear - I may not be the world's biggest fan of the Conservative Party but still (with one glorious exception!) give me Clownesses over Clowns any day of the week

To paraphrase, in fact, I'd say that discriminating for equality is like bombing for peace ;)

We've had a bucketful of 'Blair Babes' I just hope we're not about to be inundated with ' Daves Dollies'

1. At 1:52pm on 20 Oct 2009, Secratariat wrote:
I know this may be a radical idea but what about "All local" shortlists ?

How about, instead of parachuting whatever Central Office clown into the seat the parties actually got local people to choose the local candidate they'd like to represent them in Parliament ?

Personally, I'm sick of all of the usual Party candidates being chosen to represent our area and as such I think a new rule should be brought in so that only people who are eligible to vote in an election are able to stand in the election. Therefore only residents of a constituency would be able to stand for election in that constituency and all of the central office candidates would have to go back to their own areas and stand for election there.

===

Agree with you completely. My local MP is retiring at the next General Election to spend more time with his moat.

His successor as Conservative candidate has just been selected from a shortlist of 6. None currently lives in the constituency. (Neither does the encumbent, by the way. His country home is in a neighbouring constituency.) Four contested the 2005 General Election in different constituencies, Brent Eat, Hull East, Norwich North, and Easington. Clearly none of them has any affinity or connection with the new constituency they wish to serve, it is merely a stepping stone to get on the Westminster gravy train.

In their wisdom, the local electorate chose to replace a barrister from London with ........... a barrister from London. Plus ca change, etc.

Three men, three women,

"Positive action instead of positive discrimination" is a good idea - but this isn't it.

Positive action would mean scouring the Conservatives' Membership for new potential (female) candidates; running a campaign targeted at women to get them interested in applying in the first place; and offering a 'fast-track' route for women to shadow MPs, gain experience etc so they'd be ready for the job.

There are loads of things that all 3 parties should have been doing for years - because these aren't quick-fix measures - to make women more interested and more quickly qualified for the job. That would be positive action. This *is* discrimination - but I guess if you leave things till the last minute, then that's the best you can do.

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

Cameron had already lost my vote. Now he's lost it further. This discrimination is disgusting. Let the thing evolve naturally, for Pete's sake.

I'm sickened by this persistant favouring of minority groups, genders, what have you. Let people choose the representatives they want, not Cameron, not Brown, not Clegg.

You want to know why the public mistrusts politics and politicians? Add this stuff into it. I do not want a preselected positively discriminated person on my voting paper.

"88. At 3:42pm on 20 Oct 2009, djlazarus wrote:
To paraphrase, in fact, I'd say that discriminating for equality is like bombing for peace ;)"

I thought the expression was "discriminating for equality is like ******* for virginity"

Not usre f this will get moderated but, let's be honest, there's worse going out on the BBC every night.

On the subject of positive discrimination and all-female shortlists, the recent open primary by the Conservatives in my constituency had three women, three men, three from London, one from Norfolk, one from the north East, an investment analyst, a business consultant, a businesswoman, a farmer and businesswoman, a barrister and former army officer, and a retired army colonel. One from an ethnic minority background.

The white, male, London-centric barrister got the gig.

#75 jrperry

Yes, I would like to see all apparent wrongdoers (as in those who appear to have exploited the system) made to at least pay the money back. I believe Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper fall into that bracket, so yep, I would like to see those two penalised - as for the whole family, although even in Toryland surely collective punishment cannot be tolerated?

The reason I keep pointing at David Cameron is that he is very likely to be our next PM whereas many others aren't. Unlike Sir Thomas and most of the posters on this blog, I'm not living retrospectively - Dave is our future and I wouldn't mind him being tested or questioned just a little bit, especially as we're in it together.

"I was just congratulating my good friend David Cameron on a rare, progressive sounding policy ... that not allowed? - sagamix"

You know as well as i do that ALL of David's policies are progressive, enlightened and sound

Well people say that Gordon is out of touch its quite rare that the opposition party is also out of touch they normally try to get more votes by seeing it from the electorates point of view, the last thing we need is more positive discrimination, best person for the job will do.

74. At 2:44pm on 20 Oct 2009, extremesense wrote:
#52 jrperry

Labour promised to reform the House of Lords with a free vote at the last election - they got in.

===

Tony Blair promised reform of the House of Lord in 1997, it didn't happen. Tony Blair enlisted Roy Jenkins to look at electoral reform in 1997, then rejected his findings.

Funny that Bottler Brown (to quote Nick) only got interested in electoral reform when it looks likely that Labour will get a good kicking at the General Election and then face a Tory-inspired review of the electoral boundaries with the aim of eradicating the in-built Labour bias.

Why did it take him 12 years to become a convert? Then again, a man who doesn't even know what his favourite biscuit is....!

It is up to the Conservatives how they run their Party but the big problem with positive discrimination in any area, is simply that the most suitable person may be denied the job.

It probably does not matter that much when choosing a prospective candidate to become an MP but there might be other areas where positive discrimination may result in all sorts of problems, especially of the legal variety, if a 'better' candidate is not chosen because of positive discrimination.