In his Lib Dem Voice piece “Too male and too pale” – Why shortlists and the Leadership Programme are not the answer, Paul Head states that he is totally opposed to all-women shortlists (AWS) because they ‘ignore the real problem’ that this reflects in the party as a whole; and that we need to engage more with women and BAME people on a grassroots level and change from below.
This is a sensible argument, and is something that we should strive for. However, I believe that there is a place for AWS in the Liberal Democrats, despite the fact that the specifics would likely be hard to pin down.
Paul Head states that shortlists are a ‘quick fix’. On one level, this is true, with the outcome of gaining more female MPs. The long-term effect, though, is that those women would become role models; other women will see them and think ‘I could to do that too’, further increasing the number of female MPs. For this reason, AWS could be temporary and still produce results.
If there is any perception, conscious or not, that being an MP is a male or masculine job, increasing the number of women MPs in this way will help to correct this. Furthermore, these women would evidence the fact that we are a female-friendly party, a point which is harder to make if we are not seen to trust women to represent us.
A more contentious issue is whether women can be properly represented by men. Work by Rosie Campbell, Sarah Childs and Joni Lovenduski finds that the attitudes of the public mirror those of MPs; that is, the average woman on the street has views broadly congruent with a female MP. This means that if women are disproportionately under-represented in the Commons, female concerns might not be properly highlighted, and therefore, a greater number of women MPs is desirable as soon as possible. The Fawcett Society suggests that this could take 70 years to happen organically, and this just isn’t good enough.
Even if you don’t accept the representation argument, it is difficult to argue against the fact that if there were truly no barriers to becoming an MP, then it could be expected that MPs would be a random selection of people, coming from all walks of life, with different characteristics. As scholar Jane Mansbridge argues, the fact that this is not the case indicates that something must be holding some groups back.
Equality is a Liberal Democrat passion, and unless we believe that it is right for certain groups to be denied access to what is currently a rather exclusive club, this is something that we must make every effort to change.
* Nat Jester is a Lib Dem member in Bristol South.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Morecambe and Wise and Leonard Rossiter
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
Katharine Pindar
David Warren
David Raw
48 Comments
Ironically the last paragraph of this piece says everything I agree with. We believe firmly in equality. Discrimination never lets you reach the equality you so desire whilst breeding resentment and accusations of favouritism.
The way to equality is not positive discrimination. We must never be seduced.
Great article Nat! I’d definitely like to see more female and BME representation in Parliament!
I do agree, whilst not a long-term solution, shortlists are a great start. An increase in the number of women would be a great start in helping to change the culture of the party and making it more amenable to under-represented groups!
And of course the first response is from a man compaining that the whining, bitter, shrewish women are conspiring against him. Guys: sometimes this is not about you.
@Andrew – the world is already full of discrimination, with the gender pay gap being one of a huge number of examples. We’re not asking for #more# than men, all we’re asking for is the chance to have the same opportunities, many which are currently denied to us.
Nat,
An interesting point, but made perhaps in the absence of pertinent information.
At the last General Election, the proportion of target seats, plus defences with a new candidate, where the candidate was a woman was pretty good – I don’t have the exact figures to hand, but take my word for it. The problem was that they didn’t win.
There is some valuable work to be done in attempting to work out why that was, but the selection process appears to be less of a problem than issues relating to what is expected of a candidate once selected. Ruth Bright has touched on some of those issues far more eloquently than I ever could, in her piece earlier this week.
I have philosophical doubts about whether you should seek to remedy a failing by using methods that cut against one’s political principles, but I acknowledge the frustration experienced by those who feel most disadvantaged.
@Mark – I do have those figures, having written a dissertation on female Lib Dems in parliament! My opinion still stands. Somewhere down the line, something is going wrong: if our selection procedures and support were that good, why is it that so few women made it to parliament? I’m not saying that I have all the answers, but I think it is time to try something new. If it doesn’t work, then I will concede defeat, but it has worked very well for Labour which indicates that it might work for us too.
Nat – how would you feel about splitting the list of seats in half and having half all male short lists and half all female shortlists?
There are already far too many Y chromosomes on this thread. When are men going to stop offering their patronizing ‘explanations’ for inequality, and just listen to what women have to say? It seems that the second thing men have trouble keeping closed is their mouths.
David, I find your comments quite offensive. I also happen to be a man and I also happen to be a committed feminist. I can only assume though that you think you are being witty.
Nat, unfortunately Mark’s point is fatal to your argument – 50:50 target seat representation of the two genders we are talking about here demonstrates the problem is not with gender in our selection procedures. There may however be an issue in your second point around support. I would also add two further points: that, given the smaller sample size than Labour and the lack of such things as ‘safe seats’ chance and bad luck in campaigns will make us vulnerable – I do not think the selection rules made those who were women who were selected for our target seats not win. Second, it may have worked for Labour, but we do not believe as a part, in positive discrimination, surely.
What we need is more positive action, more encouragement, and more women to put themselves forward. You seem to be damning the leadership programme before it has started. I do however support selection short-list quotas, the consideration of gender and other identified aspects of discrimination, the leadership programme which trains some people who have already been target seat candidates to help them go forward and win in future.
Nat,
I stand by my contention that the selection process itself does not obviously discriminate. The available data indicates that a female applicant is disproportionately more likely to be selected than a male one. However, the issues are twofold.
Firstly, there is a gender imbalance between the number of men applying for approval and the number of women doing likewise – about two men for every one woman. Your proposal does nothing to address this key problem.
Secondly, there is the election result itself. Women chosen to defend seats where the sitting MP had retired did surprisingly badly, for reasons that are, as far as I am aware, yet to be ascertained. Again, your proposal does nothing to address that.
So, are you saying that we need AWS to make up a shortfall in the number of women fighting winnable seats? I ask, because the statistics don’t suggest this to be a problem. Or are you trying to solve the wrong problem?
As a Returning Officer, candidate assessor and former member of the English Candidates Committee involved in recent revisions to both the approval and selection processes, I’ve tested the diversity aspects of both almost to destruction. However, your data implies something I don’t recognise. Care to share it?
@ Anonymous – “What we need is more positive action, more encouragement, and more women to put themselves forward”. We have singularly failed at this in the past, what makes you think it would be any different now?
As I said in the article, AWS also demonstrates a commitment to women; a statement that parliament is for women too. This would likely facilitate a culture change, where we move to a position of accepting and supporting women who want to be candidates, something which Ruth Bright had awful problems with. It isn’t just about the numbers, it is also about changing the way we – and the public – think.
In relation to discrimination, I refer you to a comment I made earlier, which I fear I will have to re-state several times! “The world is already full of discrimination, with the gender pay gap being one of a huge number of examples. We’re not asking for #more# than men, all we’re asking for is the chance to have the same opportunities, many which are currently denied to us.”
As a Lib Dem I support equality of opportunity, but not contrived equality of outcome. As Mark says above, we have numerous female candidates in winnable seats – the opportunity is available. The problem is not with candidate selection – it’s with getting the candidates elected.
Nat,
Thank you so much for starting the debate on this. So, so much to add that I will have to go away and work it out to make a coherent posting.
In fact I started on it but it got so much I’m going to submit it as an article I think, but in essence I’m beginning to believe that in fact it is sometimes women that are as guilty if not more so of holding women back from achieving.
TBC…
I agree with Andrew Emmerson.
Firstly, I’m not going to apologise for my genetic inheritance of a white chromosome. Those who dismiss me and others like me as “more white males” are making judgements based on the most superficial of criteria, which is neither liberal nor tolerant.
Actually, I represent a number of minority groups under-represented in parliament although I have no wish to declare them here or anywhere else, and don’t feel that I should. But I will say this: I live in a council house, have previously been homeless, have personally experienced the effects of social immobility in a very real way and was forced to drop out of medical school for a lack of funding. I try to further myself but inevitably hit the glass ceiling time after time. I’m the kind of person Nick Clegg refers to when he preaches his sermons about young people from certain backgrounds being deprived of opportunity. Obviously there are some within my own party who would deny me further opportunity on the basis of something else I can’t change – my gender.
I think the real quesation has to be asked “what is diversity?” For those who see this purely in terms of gender mix, then AWSs will provide an easy answer. For those of us who think differently, who want to create a party which better reflects our communities and with better representation of those from LGBT orientations, ethnic minorities, lower socio-economic background or with disabilities the solutions are longer-term and more complex.
A great deal has been made in Scotland of the fact that only 1 in 5 of our MSPs are female. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Margaret Smith was narrowly defeated, Jim Hume scraped in via the regional list. A few hundred votes either way and we’d have 40% of our MSPs being female. Would that mean equality had been achieved? What is also overlooked is that until we start winning seats it doesn’t matter if we have 100% women candidates. We had excellent female candidates for target seats in Scotland such as Argyll & Bute and Inverness, of course Margaret in Edinburgh and Katy Gordon at the top of the regional list in Glasgow (who, depite her gender, had little difficulty dislodging a sitting male MSP from the top of the pile). The trouble is that voters rejected us and our candidates.
Another problem is the incumbency of white male MPs. Let’s be honest, the reason we didn’t have many more female MPs elected in 2010 was because we gained few seats – seats were successfully held by incumbents who are largely white and male (no fault of theirs). Until incumbents stand down and are replaced by women, AWS will simply not work – at least in the way they have in the Labour Party. We simply don’t have safe seats to parachute them into.
I think it is right to have a debate on diversifying the party – at all levels. But why we should take the worst and least liberal elements of Labour Party internal democracy as a way forward I have no idea.
Obviously I meant a Y-chromosome!!!!!
I’m just pointing out that *every single respondent* to this thread is male, and the entire burden of their response is that it will be terrible, just terrible, if the smallest gesture is made toward institutional equality of genders. Because, you know, men have been having it so terribly rough these days.
Where are the women? How is it that there are no responses from the people who are actually concerned? Could it just be that women might not feel comfortable responding in such a testosterone-soaked, clubby atmosphere? Oh, no, not in such a “liberal, tolerant” forum. I expect that none of the respondents — including self-styled feminists — has any idea of the real difficulties women face in ascending the ladder in a male-dominated environment.
Call that intolerant, if you will. It certainly is. It’s intolerant of institutionalized biases, of prejudice, of inequality of opportunity and inequality of outcome. Those things have been tolerated quite long enough.
I find it difficult to accept that action should be taken on the theory that men can not properly represent women. Presumably it works the other way. Can ethnic minorities be properly represented by white MPs, and vice versa?
Obviously a problem with political representation through single member constituencies is that the majority preference, or prejudice, is favoured to the exclusion of minority representation. Prejudice and bigotry should be discouraged rather than embraced.
While AWS seems to raise a lot of hackles, female as well as male, the fact is that All Male Shortlists are already commonplace in the Party. So common we even have a special rule forbidding them, a rule which is ignored.
As an armchair Member Ive only ever been to 2 Hustings, for my local PPC & for The London Mayoral contest. Both Hustings had 4 Men standing. Im going to another Hustings next week, 2 Men.
Thats 3 contests, 10 Candidates & no Women.
When are we going to stop bleating & actually change things ?
I have always been very torn about all women shortlists. Speaking as a young woman who has recently been through an election, I would be lying if I said I did not come across some prejudice. However, I ran against both male and female candidates and I won by a large majority.
Part of me feels that by having all women shortlists it sends the message that those women could not win against a man. However, I appreciate that we are in desperate need of more women, and that this has worked for other parties.
Paul Barker is absolutely right: There must be a minimum female candidate quota in place, but AWS is not the way to go for the reasons we have discussed – not least, candidate selection is not the problem.
David, I think your use of the phrase ‘self-styled’ is not really in keeping with the sort of constructive debate LDV is usually know for, it is a little bit offensive.
David says: “none of the respondents…has any idea of the real difficulties women face in ascending the ladder in a male-dominated environment.”
And how can he make such a judgment? Also, I don’t need to be lectured about inequality of opportunity – it’s been the story of my life.
I also wonder if the average middle-class female professional politician type (ex-intern, etc) has any understanding of the real difficulties some of us from poorer backgrounds have in not only ascending the ladder but even developing sufficient motivation to consider climbing it. Many don’t even consider joining a political party in the first instance as they find them an irrelevance, which itself is a real challenge to rise to.
Diversity must mean something more than gender balance, however laudable and desirable an aim that is. Unfortunately that seems to be forgotten by proponents of AWSs who fail to see the wider picture, not least that there are better means of achieving gender balance.
I should point out that the party’s Campaign for Gender Balance is opposed to the principle of AWS. I can assure David that the chair of the group, Dinti Batstone, is neither a “self-styled feminist” nor lacking in understanding about the problems women experience.
David,
Call me quirky if you will, but I’ve entered into this debate because not only am I a ‘candidate insider’, but because I have rather a lot of form in terms of the diversity debate. I happen to be male. I also happen to be BAME, so I’m not exactly unaware of the issues. And I’m not saying that AWS would be a bad thing, I’m just not convinced that it would solve the problems that we have. Changing things is fine, if by doing so you actually address the problem you have.
And, because I’ve been part of the process, I’ve tried to remove the barriers that exist, where I can. That isn’t always easy, and it presumes that there are issues that I’m not obviously aware of, so listening to candidates is important. But it’s easy to accuse people of being testosterone driven. Actually, I’m more solution focussed. That said, being married to a female Parliamentarian helps…
Paul,
Actually, the rule is never ignored. A returning officer expects his/her selection committee to approach women and other candidates from under-represented groups if none come forward initially. Sometimes they do, often they don’t. If it is then a choice between a list with all men, and no candidate at all, what would you choose? Equally pertinent, what do you propose to do about it yourself?
And finally, here’s a list of what might have been. These are seats where we might have elected a woman MP, but didn’t;
Camborne & Redruth, Romsey & Southampton North, Richmond Park, South East Cornwall, Harrogate & Knaresborough, Hereford & Herefordshire South, Truro and Falmouth, York Outer, City of Durham, Glasgow North, Guildford and Watford (I’ve probably missed out some, for which I apologise)
In all of those seats, we were either defending, defending with a new candidate, defending on notional figures, or attacking a small majority. If wed won them, we have had nearly twenty women in the Commons, and made the big breakthrough in terms of gender balance. It didn’t happen. Indeed, the election results implied that women candidates, on that occasion, were less successful in defending seats. I have no idea why, but the selection process wasn’t a factor.
So, as I say, I’m not convinced that selection is the problem. Supply is a problem, in that we don’t have enough women applying to be approved (their pass rate at the approval stage is slightly better than for men). Outcome at elections is a problem, because women aren’t being elected. Support for candidates is also a problem, because of a combination of a lack of resources, the lack of a reliably large block vote that we can rely on to turn out regardless, and some rather ambitious expectations of what a candidate can, and should, do whilst holding down a life.
So, it comes back to “what is the problem to which AWS is the solution?”, and I’m yet to see any data that provides me with a convincing argument. I am happy to be persuaded though…
I support the view that `grass-roots’ activism local meetings and campaigns should foster and reflect opportunities and enthusiasm to welcome more women L/D members and fellow travellers into their ranks to get involved throughout the year and not just as a selection question in Elections.
Women are half of the population in the UK but do not see there numbers represented in Parliament or in most Town Halls .However, AWS is not the answer as it would ill serve the real natural potential of women at all levels from an early age into Liberal politics and debate.I believe that Liberal women want to be seen as being equal to men in terms of all talent available in the pool.
I support the views expressed that there are good Liberal women role models at the coal-face in Parliament like Shirley Williams, Lynn Featherstone, Sarah Ludford,Jo Swinson,Dorothy Thornhill,Caroline Pigeon,Kirsty Williams et al and their work serves as a beacon to younger women entering into the arena with their `Can do attitude’.
Presumably we would have to change part of the preamble to our Constitution:
“we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality.”
I’m not a fan of AWS but I am increasingly concerned that without some more proactive measure we will end up in the same shoddy position after the next GE when it comes to the representation of over 50% of the population.
Andrew’s points are well-made and clearly heartfelt. The argument about women’s representation is not a zero-sum position. The difficulty I have with saying we need to do more to make parliament more diverse across the board (which is raised every time the question of women’s representation is put forward) is that if one considers mens voices against women’s voices in parliament, men are clearly represented. Women aren’t.
Mark’s points about the constituencies in which women would have won had things gone slightly differently at the last GE are also telling. If things had gone our way we would have had around 20 women MPs, he says. Fine, but that is out of (say) 77. So just over 25%. That is still not good enough.
How about considering a policy for the next GE that all retiring MPs have to be replaced by a woman candidate? How about for any future by-elections in this parliament that the candidate must be a woman – we might not win the by-election in question but it would do much to counter our image. More radically still, how about working with Labour and the Conservatives to suggest that half of all seats only select a woman (from whichever of the three main parties), and half select a man.
I’m not sure some of the posters here appreciate how much of a problem this is. There are many women who have worked for years and are used to seeing results for their work. We are just not seeing the same sorts of results from politics. The disenchantment amongst women appears to be the case across the parties, looking at the YouGov poll from earlier this week. People need to realise that the current situation is unjust, democratically bankrupt and unsustainable.
The problem with saying positive action (and as I say I am not a fan) should not be taken is that it leaves women fighting for years, probably decades, to achieve equality. That is not good enough. If we want women to take politics and our party seriously, we have got to do more, and quickly.
We keep having the same debate here and get nowhere. I believe its because we are not really taking into account the effect of our culture on this issue. We live in a culture where women are not found in leadership positions to the same extent as men are. This is in politics as well as in business.
To the people that say it should be a meritocracy and therefore we shouldn’t have positive discrimination: that is no doubt true BUT we don’t have a meritocracy. We just don’t. In our society, not just in politics. So the question is how do we create one? We simply cannot say, with any logical consistency, that we should have one and therefore not take any action when doing nothing will retain the current non-meritocratic situation we have. We need better thinking.
We also need people to understand what the nature of this non-meritocratic culture is. I can see it very clearly because I am a woman and it effects me, internally and externally. White men, can you see it? It’s there and I say (and so do leading experts of all kinds from all countries) that it’s there. If you can’t see it the fault is yours. Look harder. DO some research, go beyond your experience into the experience of others.
Can men represent women? Can women represent men? What does this even mean? There are no ‘womens issues’ there are only issues that affect people. Can a rich black man represent the issues of a poor white woman? Can a rich white woman represent the issues of a disabled white man? Again I say, we need better thinking here. We need to know how to reach peoples lives in order to be able to represent them, and that can be done by men, women, all races, etc.
What depresses me about these discussions in the party is that there seems little will to change anything for the ‘out-groups’. We live in a world of have and have-nots, including the groups that have power and those that don’t. In the Lib Dems men have the bulk of the power. The leadership team is men (totally??). The coalition agreement was discussed by men. Do we want to create a society where all kinds of people share in power? If we do, we need to move beyond the teenage view of “it’s not fair, it should be a meritocracy, treat everyone the same’. What are we going to do the bring this about??
I think having AWS would provoke a change in behaviour. I am not a fan of them either and think they would need to be a short term intervention but they would force local parties to look for female candidates. They would ensure more were elected so more would come forward. I know for a fact that the Tories and Labour headhunt smart, professional women to join as candidates. We should be doing this. AWS would break us out of the lazy thinking that everything is OK as it as.
Frankly if we don’t get better at this we will be unelectable in 2015 and beyond as we will be the last bastion of the privileged man. We will be the party that talks about equality but is paralysed when it comes to doing anything about it.
Whilst it would be good to see a more diverse Parliament, I don’t believe that a quota mentality helps: tokenism destroys credibility. Candidate support and mentoring are vital – and not just for under-represented groups – but I believe the problem starts even before selection. At autumn conference I attended a “do you want to be an MEP” session. The room was full, but I believe there were only 3 other women there. Maybe the problem is that not enough women WANT to stand to achieve the magical 50%? And let’s not go down the route of saying that the women MPs represent women. They don’t: they represent their constituents. My dislike of my MP is based on his policies and attitudes, and has nothing to do with his chromosomes.
Another thing… to my mind the root of the imbalance is that so many hopefuls are career politicians e.g. Oxbridge PPE, internship, researching, ministerial aide. Many of them happen to be “male and pale”. That’s not right or wrong, it’s just how things are, and it has produced some very fine politicians who have done a good job of representing the voters even if they are not “representative”. If you want to change it, consider introducing an “all real-world jobs shortlist”. That will result in a much more diverse outcome.
2 things spring to mind after reading the article and the comments :
1) AWS is not a guarantee of fixing the stated symptom (not problem), which is namely – we don’t have an equal proportion of MPs or other elected representatives
2) The problem is structural as Lee has pointed out. I’m sure we would all like to live in a true meritocracy, so, what is stopping that happening?
Going back to the original post, the point was made that we are in a vicious circle. Few women MPs means fewer role models, therefore less likelihood of women putting themselves forward into what is a male dominated environment.
The only true way I can see of changing this is not by some quick-fix, but by a long concerted effort from the whole party to promote the role models we have, encourage the grass roots to come forward and take part. As a party chair, I see the ratio of male – female activists to be significantly skewed (even though membership ratios are more even), which just reinforces the problem.
If the party as a whole were to enable female MPs, or indeed MPs of any under-represented group to spend more time presenting themselves as role models by supporting them to reduce their parliamentary and constituency workload for example, then that would enable a more constant, reinforced message to go out.
Additionally, the creation of Officer positions in each party along with asociated training – to promote and encourage women and other under-represented groups – might also help.
As an obviously “too male and too pale” member of the party I could use some help with this, rather than just being dismissed as part of the problem.
@Jo Shaw – can you explain how we can hsay that ” all retiring MPs have to be replaced by a woman candidate? How about for any future by-elections in this parliament that the candidate must be a woman” without breaching the party’s constitution which is clearly against discrimination?
The gender pay gap is 10.2% http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/08/international-womens-day-pay-gap
On the boards of banks in the FTSE 100, only 9% are female http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmtreasy/482/48205.htm
Women will be disproportionately affected by budget cuts http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/07/budget-cuts-women-revenue
THIS is discrimination, yet we accept these things as being ‘just the way it is’. Why is it that so many of you – and indeed the wider public – feel that this is alright? It really is not.
Bleeting about meritocracy and ‘doing more’ just is not good enough. We’ve been trying to ‘do more’ for years (the CGB for instance is hardly overwhelmed with funds), but the results just haven’t appeared. We need radical change, and we need it now.
Nat – are you saying that AWS wil fix all the problems you’ve highlighted, or that the lack of women in politics is the root cause of all the other issues?
In terms of the discussion on your original post, it seems to me that women in general are “turned off” from politics and therefore are not taking part, from the ground up.
If it is true that women are making it onto the PPC list at least, if not more successfully than men, and if again, women are being selected as candidates along similar lines, then the 2 key issues we face are:
1) Not enough women getting involved in politics
2) Female Lib Dem candidates not being elected by the public
I suggest you look for radical change, but not as sticking plasters to the symptoms we see. How about proposing a radical overhaul of our political system and methods of government so they are more open and attractive to women? Surely that would encourage more women to get involved? Having that on the manifesto might encourage more women to be active in the party and more women in general to vote for the party.
If you think the CGB would be more effective if it had more funds, then that is surely a good starting point. Mind you – having never heard of CGB until now, and reading the web pages with some dismay, it seems to be just another centrally controlled initiative that is doomed to failure.
“If you are a woman thinking about your next steps in politics, get in touch with us and we will talk you through the processes”
How could that ever succeed if there are hardly any women even thinking about being involved in politics, let alone some next steps.
I do think the point about the proportion of women in target seats is relevant, I dont know why so many of them were not elected, particlualrly as some were runnin g against other women whp were the sitting Mp.
I think positive action is needed tpo encourage more female, and BME candidates, but Im not sure if the shortlists will address the other problem, which is that when we select women in jkey seats, they do not win.
Im famialir with the circumstances and campaigns of two women in target seats during GE2010, both of whome were nott elected, and I woudl say the reasons for their faiulure were different in each individual case.
I have no doubt we have enough quality female candidates to ensure that any we run in winnable seats woiuld be good Mps, but the point remains there has not been a lack of opportunity, I wonder, Nat do you feel there has been a lack of engagenment with women voters and activists to get them to stand or t support us?
Nat, I see no logical connection between the impact of cuts on women and there being too few female MPs. Yes, there is still a lot of unacceptable discrimination in politics, but some of the answer lies within ourselves and we cannot blame others for our own apathy. Put it this way, if 100 men and 20 women applied for 50 jobs, I’d think there was something rather odd, discriminatory and illiberal going on if 30 men and all 20 women were appointed. The thing to tackle is why women don’t even put themselves forward, because when we do stand we seem to do disproportionately well. Is that because on average the calibre of women is higher? It might be. It could be they are more driven… or have better support networks… or are tough enough to overcome obstacles that would not need to be overcome by a man in the same position. However as a voter, my primary interest is in having an MP who represents my views and principles; who has the strength of character to do the job well; who will have integrity and commitment and act in the public interest. All other things being equal, I might vote on the basis of sisterhood, but I’m sufficiently bloody-minded and (I think) feminist that I would refuse on principle to vote for a woman candidate produced from an all-woman shortlist. It’s just the wrong way of achieving an otherwise laudable outcome.
@ Dave L – Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. MPs kick and scream when people suggest changing the system, and who can blame them? It works perfectly well for their clique. I believe that having more women in parliament (from all parties) would force it to consider things from a different point of view, and look at issues they might not previously have considered. For instance, it took a woman MP, Christine McCafferty, to raise the issue of high VAT on sanitary products because men had done nothing about it, probably because they didn’t realise that this was a problem.
The CGB is described by the party as the ‘best hope’ for getting more women involved. I agree that there are problems with the organisation, but this was all that the party was willing to concede.
@ David T Actually I do think there has been a lack of opportunity. Go back a few days and read Ruth Bright’s piece on being a candidate; if you were a woman, having heard that story, are you honestly telling me that you’d think you had the same opportunity to stand? We desperately need a culture change, and I think AWS will go some way to making people realise that women belong in politics.
@Ann K – did you consider that perhaps the 20 women might be better candidates for the mystery job? Do we think it is natural that men should be over-represented in jobs?
PS, I’d like to see suggestions on how to fix the problem of under-representation from everyone who has argued against this article. I’m genuinely curious as to what you all think!
Let’s wait and see what happens with the Leadership programme before we hatch uncounted chickens.
The biggest argument against AWS are that they don’t increase participation, just visibility. Chris Mullin relates safe Labour seats with AWS getting fewer than 4 applicants.
Why should women feel that the only way they can get elected is via an AWS? It’s demeaning in both aspect and result to solely focus on the macropolitical picture. The use of quotas in selections is a better direction because it enshrines the idea that both men and women have a right to be heard and can bring unique perspectives on issues. We have also started to move towards name- and gender- blind applications for seat selection panels, potentially removing our incumbency and “middle-of-the-ground man” bias.
As the constitution suggests, “the Liberal Democrats consist of men and women working together” to achieve our aims. I can’t wait for this actually to be the case at the next election.
No, Nat, it’s not ideal that men should be over-represented in certain jobs but sometimes one can identify what the blockers are and deal with them. Sometimes the problems are within ourselves – we stop ourselves from trying to succeed because that avoids the risk of failure. It’s so easy to say “well they wouldn’t have given me the job anyway”.
On the other hand, it can never be desirable or liberal that anyone is selected over a higher-calibre candidate so as to satisfy a tick-box fulfilment of equality, even if the outcome is that things “look better” and hence encourage others to put themselves forward. That is not equality at all – it is tokenism. Women have quite enough to contend with without people muttering behind their backs that “Well, you know she only got the job because…”
Please, if you can tell me why only 10% of attendees at an information session for would-be MEPs were women, I’d love to hear it. Sometimes we have to stop assuming that we will be treated a certain way and just get on with it, otherwise our fears become self-fulfilling prophecy not through men’s fault but through our own lack of will.
@ Nat – “Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. MPs kick and scream when people suggest changing the system, and who can blame them?”
Call me old-fashioned, but I thought the party members could, and do, form policy. If it were our policy (which I am sure there would be a lot of support for) to change certain elements of our political system and government so they were more open and more attractive to women, then I think that would be a very good start.
Perhaps I was a bit rude about the CGB earlier. Being more diplomatic, the organisation seems to be passive rather than active – waiting for women to find it rather than going to find them. If the emphasis were the other way round and the CGB had representation in every consituency with a specific officer appointed, then we could do a number of things.
1) actively find good candidate material and persuade them to join the party and get involved
2) actively grow the party membership and activists by focussing on aspects of politics and government that appeal to women (conversely you would get a lot of feedback about the negative aspects of politics and government which would feed into the policy making)
I’d love to do something like that in our party, but we’re just struggling for survival and can’t afford to turn down any offers of support or candidates!
Membership : 33 male, 24 female
Councillors : 7 male, 1 female
Activists : 12 male, 5 female
Candidates for 2012 : 1 male, 3 female + 2 spaces
We’re making progress, but more by luck than judgement and could use some help – I’m sure there are plenty of other local parties in similar situations ….
I’d be interested to hear others’ views on the idea of an “all real-world jobs shortlist” i.e. excluding the PPE graduates and career lobbyists in favour of a few engineers, bookkeepers, quality inspectors, sales managers and dental nurses.
But the party would have to accept that those people need more support, including financial support. People not already immersed in the world of politics will face a major challenge in that they have to carry on working and earning to support themselves/their familes/their mortgage during a campaign.
I think this is a major reason why certain groups appear to be over-/under-represented. It may simply be that certain sets of working and financial circumstances lead to specific groups being generally better placed to consider standing. That’s not sexism (sorry Nat, it isn’t!) it’s just money, and if you really intend to tackle it you need to throw money at it once suitable people have been identified. Yes, if you have to, pay their mortgage for a few months and accept that you may not win the seat at the end of it.
The problem is that the Time for Experiments, discussion & “Long-Term Solutions” has all run out. If we are serious about changing The Party by 2015 then we have to take decisions now. AWS could make The Change in time & I dont see anyone putting forward alternatives that could.
One thing that has to be dismissed is spending more Money we havent got or piling more work onto our tiny band of Activists.
Lets stop talking & do something practical.
Paul: Talk of spending money we haven’t got is pure defeatism. If we want to win power (how else to implement our principles and policies?) then we have to knock this small-town, saving-bits-of-string mentality into touch.
If the best candidate for a seat is a working person who cannot campaign properly whilst working, and has bills to pay, then maybe we need to find the money to help that candidate through the process i.e. replace their income for the key weeks in the run-up to an election.
Is politics to be the preserve of those already employed in politics, or the rich? Are you content to see so many constituencies represented by people who have never worked in a customer-facing job, never worked a night shift, never been made redundant?
If we truly want to achieve diversity withour compromising the principle of the best person getting the gig, then we need to make it possible for a wider range of people to stand. If that means money, raise the money.
David, I am not male and i responded before your comment! There are too many comments for me to catch up on in 5 mins but I hope to be back online later…
Ann, v quickly on your ‘all real jobs’ shortlist, I am a lobbyist and it is a real job, with tough hours and real demands on your life. It can be easy to define what we want to call a ‘real job’ but to do so will quickly risk – as I am sure you are aware – all sorts of dangers about who decides what a ‘real job’ is… I get branded as a career-politician by note of my age and job all the time, and that hurts, because the implication behind all of those types of comments is that a) if you are young you are just after a career and don’t really care about people and b) if you deem my job to ‘not be real’ my views are suddenly rendered invalid. It is such a risky line to take. [Of course I usually just point out that I have worked in a call-centre, served in a restaurant, quality controlled, commuted, worked in an dull office job etc… as well.]
Henry, I’m sorry if I offended you. I don’t doubt that your job is a tough one and of course all of those roles I mentioned are real jobs. But I think I was ultra careful to insert the word “world” in there.
My point was (and apologies to anyone else who took umbrage at my shorthand way of describing it) that people who make their entire career in politics tend to be a rather narrow demographic. The male and pale that everyone is talking about.
You may have done a bit of call centre work or whatever first, but that gives you a very different perspective and life experience from someone who does it for 10 years and then goes into politics.
Currently it seems that having the “meat” of your CV in the political world is a major advantage. It would be rather healthy, and tend to produce the desired outcome of diversity, if the opposite were true.
So the way to cure discrimination is to have discrimination? No, of course not!
I’m relieved to see that the weight of opinion of both female and male contributors has been against AWS. It’s a tool of deeply illiberal Harmanism that has no place in a fair and open selection process.
I do appreciate your arguments, Nat, but I think the real question is why don’t more women WANT to stand? Because that’s the sticking point. It’s not that the big horrible sexist process conspires to stop them getting selected – it’s that they don’t come forward in sufficent numbers right at the start.
If they don’t want to stand because they fear prejudice and think the odds are stacked against them, then that’s the problem to be tackled and I think the CGB will go a long way to solving it by providing the support.
If on the other hand they don’t stand because it doesn’t appeal, they don’t want the lifestyle and they don’t much fancy the job, then AWS looks pretty unfair on the men, doesn’t it? I wouldn’t want to be the quota-filler in such circumstances.
Hi Ann, I am glad you also reject AWS, and I wholeheartedly agree with your final comment. But I do not agree with your penultimate comment: the notion of ‘real world’ and ‘not real world’ is simply not a palatable one – especially given that whatever one’s job, we all still end up having to pay for childcare, go to school, use the health service, experience crime, pay rent, commute, shop, occassionally go on to benefits etc…
Nat,
I think that in general there are obstacles to women engaging in politics, and some newspaper coverage which judges or comments on womens appearance in a way it would do on a mans appearance may well serve as a reason why women dont want to be engaged, and there is obviously a problem across our party and other parties regarding represenattion of women.
Whether more women candidates would solve the problem Im not sure.