David Cameron last night pledged to give a third of jobs in his first government to women in a highly controversial plan that risks infuriating male MPs. The Tory leader wants to ensure female politicians are not mere \’window dressing\’ but can influence decisions affecting women\’s lives.
Leave aside all the arguments that positive discrimination is still discrimination: give the likely number of female Tory MPs after the next election he\’s going to be trawling in a pretty shallow talent pool.
Promising to employ incompetents because of their haplotype isn\’t the most compelling reason to vote for someone.
“The Tory leader wants to ensure female politicians are not mere ‘window dressing’ …”
So he’s going to hire a fixed number regardless of ability. Just how is that going to work then…?
“So he’s going to hire a fixed number regardless of ability. Just how is that going to work then…?”
As in Norway: the advent of “superskirts”, tokenism run rampant.
Nothing in the constitution requires that ministers have to be members of the Commons.
They have to be Privvy Councillors, but Her Majesty could elevate them to the Lords if she is advised that they ought to be made a minister.
Someone should tell our politicians that MPs represent all their constituents, male, female, black, white, etc. They do not represent a minority group as a whole, nor a majority group (women) either.
It’s pretty fundamental to the constitution, this concept. It’s a ludicrous idea that the House of Commons won’t “represent” the nation until it looks like a representative sample. The MPs only have to listen to their voters – but that’s a radical concept nowadays.
My own theory is that there’s a whole lot of SQ in politics.
Men are (generally) far more interested in Westminster/party politics because they see things in more abstract, rule-driven ways.
What women see is things on a more personal level – that their hospital or school is terrible, and they address it at that level, rather than at a systemic level of why their school is terrible.