This morning I read about the Commons' Speaker's conference. In order to address the relatively small number of women in parliament plans to legislate for female quotas was discussed. I hate the idea of quotas, they are divisive and counter-productive. I then read that the idea of all ethnic shortlists was also doing the rounds.
No, no, no, no, no!
I will make this commitment now, I will never apply for any constituency that selected its candidate via an all ethnic shortlist.
Parliament does not reflect the country that it is meant to represent. There are proportionally too many Scots, too many men, too many white people, too many barristers, too many well educated people, etc. etc. Some of these differentials are seen as problematic, others are not.
Some of this is caused by pull factors, the disproportionate number of lawyers is a reflection of the link between creating laws and practising law. This pull factor is logical and appropriate, other differentials are caused by push factors, things which dissuade some groups from entering parliament. The under representation of women and black people is almost certainly caused by push factors. Creating quotas will not address those push factors.
Becoming an MP isn't a logical course of action, the money isn't great, the hours are long, there is a huge amount of pressure and most MPs go through 4-12 year battle to get elected at their own expense. Rather than ask why so few women and black people try to become MPs we should ask why so many white men do.
I can only assume that the expectation that many lawyers go to the commons is pervasive in chambers across the country, the same may well be true in union offices. For the mass of people outside these traditional feeder groups, the idea of going through all that crap to get a job that everyone seems to hate and that keeps you away from your family just seems daft. Maybe women and black people just aren't that stupid? Just a thought.
Until parliament has the guts to ask some serious questions about what it is and what it does it will struggle to attract candidates from outside the traditional MP recruiting pools. The changes to the sex and ethnic mix of parliament will then be subordinate to the changes in sex and ethnic mix of those feeder organisations.
Making a career in parliament more widely appealing won't be easy, won't be quick and won't create any high profile battles, but it will be more effective. It seems that the Speaker wants to be seen as radical but, like his reaction to MPs' expenses, mistakes taking controversial actions with radical actions.
Brown praise for Haitian response
1 hour ago
11 comments:
Hi
Great comment, but I remember the hard time that Lord Taylor got when he was searching for a constituency. Bigotry was the reason he was kept out of the House of Commons and bless John Major for making him a Lord.
You muse (unconvincingly in my opinion) about the hardship of being an MP but you never talk about barriers from local selection committees. Do you think there are any specific barriers placed in the way of ethnic minorities and women entering parliament? Is the kind of racism that Lord Taylor faced a thing of the past? If that kind of racism still exists do you think it might be worth using all ethnic shortlists to battle it?
Dear James. I am writing as a middle-aged white man, and thus by definition an institutionalised Enemy of the People.
Firstly thank you for a great post, sober, realistic and showing a love and knowledge of all humanity. The Race Relations Industry could learn a lot from your approach to indentity politics. The treatment of Lord Taylor was disgraceful, but it does highlight some of the problems of imposing candidates upon a sceptical electorate. To an extent, Lord Taylor, due to recent events is a somewhat unfortunate example. Another, far greater problem is the difficulties placed upon the candidate forced onto the candidates list by Party HQ. We saw it at Crew, We saw it at Erith and we're seeing it in Norwich and Suffolk. Such people are not wanted - not for who they are, but for what they represent - the politics of Oligarchy. In essence, organisers at constituency level are thoroughly upset by the cavalier attitudes of the various Party HQ's, and the complete distain with which these fund raisers, canvassers, envelope stuffers and campaign literature deliverers are treated. Party HQ selection (not Vetting) is another form of social engineering writ small and is ultimately self defeating. Your insistance on being chosen on merit is to be applauded. i hope in time to see "MP" after your name, if you are so inclined.
Matthew, the barriers are mostly unseen and unspoken but no less effective at denying opportunities. Lord Taylor is the wrong example specifically because this was the exception, a rare case where the barriers were spoken and heard.
James, the report itself does go into many of the issues you talk about. Not surprisingly, media reports don't reflect the full breadth of the report in my view.
I'll embarrass James by saying he is a classic English gentleman. So he probably is tacitly discriminated against in various regards.
James, I concur entirely with your points about The Speaker. I can't really agree with you on the remuneration of MPs. It ain't that bad; they're not exactly being forced into poverty trap!
I agree with the main points of the post though.
One of the things that does concern me is an apparent 'Glass ceiling'. In my Conservative Assoc' the hardcore activists tend to be women. Also the senior roles in the cabinet of our (Conservative controlled) District Council are filled by women.
This isn't reflected in the gender make up of the parliamentary party. Albeit the balance will get hugely better automatically if we win the General Election.
Interestingly in polls Conservative women are usually found to be less pro- All Women Short lists than Conservative men.
Therefore they seem to concur with you.
Hopefully post the election momentum will have been built up and things will change big time. i.e. more and more Conservative women in national politics.
I am firmly of the view that Conservative selection committees are far less liekly to discriminate than Labour ones, mainly because they have been doing a lot more selecting in the last 12 years.
As a 40-something white, straight, married, male, I may have been discriminated against, but only because my CV didn't tick the right local boxes. I have got through to some seats, but not to others, I seen no evidence of anybody of talent missing out.
Conservative associations know they need an amalgam of election fighter, community campaigner, thinker and leader. They know what is right for their seat, so Helen Grant gets Maidstone and Guy Opperman gets Hexham.
Bercow in his Buckinghamshire enclave has been insulated from these moves and looks back not forwards. He should re-visit this after the next election, when the HoC will look a lot diffferent!
"Parliament does not reflect the country that it is meant to represent. There are proportionally too many Scots, too many men, too many white people, too many barristers, too many well educated people, etc. etc. Some of these differentials are seen as problematic, others are not."
This is the problem of the modern age. The sole consideration should be whether an MP or candidate is competent.(ie are they standing up for their constituents) Fretting about reflecting the nation is a distraction from the fact that too many politicians no longer represent their constiuents in Parliament and Party but represent Parliament and their Party in their constituencies.
I don't care what my MP is, just like a don't care what my Doctor is, or dentist or Police officers, teachers or whatever are. They just need to be competant to get my support.
The idea that quotas will solve all ills is potty. They've got it all arse first as usual by chosing to tackle a phantom. By claiming the system is set against women and ethnic minorities without any proof (coincedence is not causation) they have created both divisive politics *and* set themselves a specious target they can easily meet with such pernicious things as all ethnic and all women short lists. It won't automatically get us better MPs or a better Parliament.
Tackle why so many inept party leeches get to be MPs. Tackle the way in which Parties parachute their man/woman into constituencies, gerrymander existing MPs stepping aside (see: Lord Moonie) etc, etc. That is the problem. They are a closed shop. A private members club. All they are doing is welcoming in malleable people who tick the right minority box. The problem is that they are malleable and beholden to people other than their consituency not what colour their skin is or what they have between their legs.
Basically, the link between an MP and their party has strengthened at the expense of the link between an MP and their constituency. At the time of the expenses scandal churning through the press there were some ideas that would shift this balance the other way - one being to have each constituency fund their MP directly.
Well James, maybe it aint pound for pound, but, if I had a wooden leg, I certainly wold not go for an "all wooden leg shortlist". And anyway, Heather Mills would get it. What a badge of ignominy!
I imagine you are regularly discriminated against. For being middle class and a Tory, and possibly for being posh.
Well said, anyway.
Come to think of it. Let's have all posh shorlists. It would save the country a lot of time and effort being nice to people who still use public transport.
The "problem" you are discussing is only raised because it is a way of making the Conservatives look "wrong".
If it should happen in the future that the Conservative Party has a greater proportion of women and/or ethnic minority people then the beeb will not raise this issue again.
Well said James. I made a similar commitment about all woment short lists.
The reason that I have (sadly) had to stop applying for seats for the next election is that I cannot have a serious job, be a good mother and be a PPC, much less fight to get selected, attend all the conferences and social and networking events I'd need to be at in order to be seen and maintain a profile.
It's that simple. I'm not the victim of discrimination, but have made my own choice. I have to work and, while my children are still young, I want and believe I should be around for them in the evenings and at the weekend.
No Speaker's Conference can change these realities. As Conservatives we believe in choice. All we can do is make sure the system is fair and allows people to exercise that choice. We can't also complain that too many women / black people/ lawyers have made a particular choice.
Historic racial discrimination against candidates such as John Taylor should stick as a shining example of the practices which we must be stamping out.
Nobody should be turned down for a seat because of the colour of their skin, even if they are white.
Fighting racism with racial discrimination is like trying to cure the British disease with Socialism
Let me add my agreement with you to the chorus of comments. However, looking at recent issues not too far from home, where the Labour Party is accused of operating an apartheid selection system it is very clear that this is an issue that needs careful consideration to make sure that our representative democracy is representative.
In the jury system it is important to have a balance of different backgrounds and, in the case of alledged racist attack you would expect an ethnically diverse jury. How much more this should be the case for our legislators.
If political parties cannot provide a range of representatives that represent the population, then action needs to be taken to protect and strengthen our democracy, without undermining it.
Post a Comment