Self-spotted bloopers:

Jacqui Smith WAS elected on an All Women Shortlist. As, er, Sunder’s article points out.

Doesn’t change me core contention though, if anything it makes it stronger: the reasoning that AWSs are bad because they returned a bad mp (jacqui smith) is ludicrous and sexist: nobodywould claim that the present system is bad because it returned idiots like Alan Duncan. Idiots are idiots, whatever their gender, so what’s doing the work in Platell’s piece has to be misogyny.

Men and women DO have different strengths and weaknesses, but I agree that we shouldn’t hold Amanda Platell’s incompetent research against her whole sex. The thing I find really disgraceful about her article is the fact that she sticks reasonably capable Ruth Kelly into the same bag as the dreadful Flint and Smith.

Incidentally, in 2000, the French passed a law which makes gender parity compulsory for some electoral lists or, for some types of contests, imposes fines on political parties that do not seek to achieve parity of representation. So far, many parties, expecially on the right, have preferred to pay those fines rather than displace the established (usually male) figures.

see http://www.idea.int/publications/wip2/upload/France.pdf

““All the more when the United Kingdom’s centuries-old practice of either only – or overwhelmingly (in recent years) – selecting men to be MPs has proved to be so disastrous. Has Cameron learned nothing from the catastrophe that was the last 400 years of Parliamentary supremacy? Remember Anthony Eden? Neil Hamilton? David Amess? As with so many Tory gentlemen, they turned out to be stunningly incompetent or ill-suited for high office. It was a national embarrassment.””

And, as you point out, the women are just as bad. So therefore the problem is not that either men are women are getting elected but that we’re asking them to do too much, a load that no one can deal with, when they get there.

Thus we should remove power from Parliament and government and return it to the people: minarchy here we come!

Paul,

Thanks for picking this up. There was broad agreement that Norman Lamont was not a great Chancellor during the Major government. I never heard anybody generalise about the general uselessness of male politicians as a result.

It seems to be pretty rare that people refer to Harriet Harman or Jacqui Smith without discussing their gender and what this says about women in politics. (Given that Platell’s column is purportedly about how much she admires those who battle through on ‘merit’, she ought now to put Caroline Flint – and indeed Harriet Harman – in that category with Nadine).

Platell’s mistake may perhaps be because she seems to be under the impression that all or almost all 101 Labour women in 1997 (ie the famous picture) were selected on all women shortlists.

There were 36 women re-elected from previous Parliaments; 35 new women MPs elected after AWS selections and 30 new women MPs elected after open selections.

(It is interesting that this was a much higher rate of selections in open selections than was the case in selections for 2001 or since: one reason is that the political argument in the party which led to decision to go for AWS may have been as or more significant than the mechanism itself: a fairly large number of women selected in open selections after the party removed the AWS mechanism due to legal concerns, but the constituencies got on and selected women in many cases. However, without AWS in 2001, there were v.few women selected; and there is a v.low rate in Labour open selections now).

Paul Sagar: “But we mustn’t view the Mail as simply a determinant of social attitudes towards gender (and sexuality), through its influence on a predominantly right-wing middle-class readership.”

I’ll just have a go at the end of that quote: a predominantly right-wing middle-class readership. That’s a big presumption about Daily Mail readers, isn’t it?

How do we define middle class? ABCDE doesn’t cut it with the marketing people, which is one of the few occasions when they are correct.

And whilst the Daily Mail is biased to the right wing, why assume that readers follow the paper’s line? Perhaps readers bat eyelids over some stories, maybe they just bought the paper for its sport or royal coverage.

A more fundamental question: Are people more influenced by newspaper anecdote than by personal experience? The local rag may report that a Paki assaulted somebody on the street; bad news for brown skinned people. But I live next door to a pleasant Paki family so my real life experience is positive. Do I become a racist on the basis on what I read in the paper?

Charlie

Golly!!!

Rather think someone will point out that you aren’t allowed to use that P word here.

You will also probably be called a racist for doing so.

No fret, Pagar. It is permissible in liberal circles to use words such as Paki, nigger, queer as an explosive adjective or adverb, occasionally, to emphasise a point. I trust that my words will be read with that sentiment.

And I wouldn’t push the use too far. All the same, I find slack use of the word chav as offensive as the P word.

Well if there is one person qualified to lecture on election winning strategies then it’s Amanda Platell.

Sunder’s point about AWS changing the mindset of the selectorates generally is probably a good one.

Attended a meeting with Jo Swinson in Parliament while I lived in London organised by a group I was involved with in association with the LibDem Campaign for Gender Balance, of which she was then chair. She made the point that when she was first fighting selections for a seat, she received a lot of negativity as a young woman–mostly of the “I think you’d do great, but I don’t think the voters will support you” kind.

Then Sarah Teather won the Brent by-election, and immediately attitudes changed; people will vote for young women candidates, thus the bias disappeared, and she got selected.

Notably, won of the seats she lost the selection for before Teather’s victory was the one that Nick Clegg now holds…

(came here to correct the Smith point, she said today on Any Questions that she was proud to have been selected on an AWS, and Dorries was trying to hammer her using Platell’s argument and failing badly)

Remain fundamentally opposed to AWS as a method, absolutely convinced that multi-member constituencies are the way to go, an opinion shared by my local, female, PPC, who is using the local botched selection within Labour to hit them quite well, voters don’t like it–she beat two male candidates in a fair fight, and that plays well.

Studies suggest that another thing that greatly affects the selection process is the gender of the leader … so that’s one argument for Harriet, then. (weep)

‘A more fundamental question: Are people more influenced by newspaper anecdote than by personal experience?’

No. That’s pretty much been acknowledged since David Morley’s study of the ‘Nationwide’ audience in the 70′s. The media can influence opinion on subjects the reader/viewer has no personal experience of (say, the Israeli-Palestine conflict, Rwanda, etc) but it’s influence is feeble where it conflicts with personal experience.

10 – any more info on such studies?

Of course, that certainly didn’t work for the Conservative Party in this country between 1975 and 1990. John Major was actually rather annoyed to have an all male Cabinet in Nov 1990, but I think didn’t even begin with women in minister of state roles.

But would be interested if there is evidence that female leaders not hostile to this agenda do have a particular impact.

In case anyone is interested (probably not) I’ve spent the afternoon thinking about this article, and I’ve decided that my argument doesn’t actually do the work I need it to.

Strangely enough, even though Tim was being a bit sarcastic, I think he actually was on to something.

Accordingly, I’ve got a severely amended (and sorry to say, longer) piece up here:

http://badconscience.com/2009/10/24/neat-illustration/

Probably mostly of interest to the philosophers, because I think my core contention is still correct. And I agree with the overall point Sunder makes above that we don’t hear bad male politicians being discussed with remarks to their gender. But my original argument rests on faulty logic, nonetheless…

“Strangely enough, even though Tim was being a bit sarcastic, I think he actually was on to something.”

And the difference between this and normality is what? Sarcasm, check, on to something, check…..

I’m sure most of you have seen it before, but:

http://xkcd.com/385/

@12

Sunder, this from Parliamentary Affairs, on Segolene Royal,
http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/gsn011v1
seems relevant.

Another (possible) error here is that MPs are being conflated with Ministers. Ruth Kelly, Jacqui Smith*, Caroline Flint were indeed incompetent at Ministerial level – I don’t know how well they do as MPs.

As we get a number of incompetent Ministers regardless of gender, perhaps the fault lies in the process of selecting Ministers.

* And Smith was good enough to admit it… …after she ‘left’ the job of Home Secretary.

we’re asking them to do too much, a load that no one can deal with, when they get there.

This is very true. Part of this is in the nature of single member constituencies, and part of this is the rise in the role of the MP as a glorified social worker, something exacerbated by the need of marginal seat MPs to build up their own personal vote.

Unfortunately, my preferred solution, STV in multi-member seats, can be said to increase the need of the latter, but multi member seats also allow some MPs to specialise a bit while ensuring their constituents aren’t neglected–I suspect Andreasen will be concentrating in scrutinising the budget and the Commission, an essential role that is frequently neglected by others, for example.

Thus we should remove power from Parliament and government

and devolve it down to more localised units? Yes, I agree completely, here’s to a Yorkshire Parliament.

Liberty commented as I typed–some AWS MPs have done a fine job as MPs, my current MP, McCafferty, is very good in that role, and has been a good friend to this site on some of our core campaigns. But others not so much. OTOH, there weren’t that many overall in the first place, so it’s hard to judge regardless.

It’s interesting that David Cameron is talking about AWS. For the last few weeks we have had to put up with the likes of Daniel Hannan telling us how open primaries are the future, no longer will candidates be chosen in smoke filled rooms by a small group of party activists. No the great British people will choose. Unless of course Central Office impose an AWS. We trust the people, but only a bit.

NB. I realise central influence over shortlists is a problem with open primaries in whatever form.

“Again, the Mail’s misogynistic editorial line is nothing new; that’s not primarily what I want to point towards. Instead, let’s reflect upon the fact that this sort of unashamed misogyny and idiocy passes with millions of people not batting an eyelid.”

I thought the secret of the Mail’s remarkable circulation success over the years was that it, uniquely among the Fleet Street rags, did a good job of attracting women readers and giving them (a particular female demographic) what they want to read.

So it’s unashamed misogyny, but this fact that it’s misogyny that Platell, a woman, is very successfully selling to other women is entirely uncommented upon by Paul here. Is that because you think it irrelevant, Paul, or does it add a layer of complexity?

There was one woman who actually did (for better or worse) change the face of British politics – Margaret Thatcher. Debates about female emancipation in politics or employment are usually based on the also “misogynist” idea that women are automatically caring, benevolent, left-leaning pacifists as if their hormones will guarantee a correct political perspective.
I personally find the comments on Kelly, Smith & Co objectionable not only because they attack their professionalism on the grounds that as women they are unsuited to their jobs but also because whereas Thatcher led her Party and so was able to determine policy (as rotten as it was) the “Blair babes” had to do the bidding of two deranged male war criminals.

the “Blair babes” had to do the bidding of two deranged male war criminals.

No, they didn’t.

Am all stuffed up and ill at home today, though am least ill member of the family

So, here’s a bit more silliness about (and also, indeed, from) Nadine Dorries on this
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/10/nadine-phones-friend.html

Nadine Dorries last week on ConservativeHome.

“Sometimes I feel sorry for some of the Labour women who were selected via all-women shortlists. Everyone knows who they are”.

Now here’s Nadine Dorries today on twitter:

“How many women are their in Gordon Browns cabinet who were selected via an all woman shortlist? And, who are they? Anyone know?”

The problem is quite simple, they are mad for at least 5 days per month.