By So, Harriet Harman appears to be embroiled in another "Harperson saga", where she has the sexist media lining up against her to shoot down whatever ridiculous thing it is she has said now. I’m amazed this is still rolling in the press – and I am thrilled that Harman is continuing to engage with the debate.
But, I wish to focus on the eye of this current ‘storm’ – and work out quite how it is the press are now saying that Harman doesn’t trust men to do anything. The Sunday Times headline on Sunday read "Harriet Harman: you can’t trust men in power". The headline was based on a ‘News Review Interview with Harriet Harman’ in the same paper. What Harman said, taken within the context of the profile, is, as far as I am concerned, eminently reasonable:
"Men cannot be left to run things on their own...in a country where women regard themselves as equal, they are not prepared to see men just running the show themselves. I think a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions”.
So what exactly is wrong with this? She doesn’t say that men can’t be trusted, she doesn’t bring in to question the competence of male politicians, she makes the perfectly valid point that true equality means equal access to positions of leadership. The fact is, that in the 90 years during which women have been able to sit in Parliament, you can count the number of women leaders and deputy leaders on one hand. Incidentally, in the same period nearly 5,000 men, and just 292 women, have been elected MPs.
Currently, the odds are stacked dramatically against women who want to get to positions of leadership – in politics, and in business – and, just as All Women Shortlists were an excellent suggestion to boost the number of women MPs, suggesting one woman in every leadership team is a serious suggestion worthy of serious consideration.
But, this still doesn’t explain the media outcry about something Harman tried to do two years ago, when she had just picked up the Deputy Leadership. All she did was 'propose' it, she didn't try to use her muscle to drive it through, and having just taken office she will have justifiably been fired up to promote a renewed equality agenda.
Aside from the rather witty, but perhaps ill-judged, Lehman Sisters joke, Harman has clarified her comments from the weekend clearly, and reasonably. Yesterday, she said that she:
“didn’t actually say you can’t trust men, I basically said you get better decision making in a team if it’s a balanced team with women and men working alongside each other”.
So, I’m still stuck as to what exactly it was in this interview that got the pillars of the patriarchy trembling. I realise that many of you will love to shoot me down for saying this – but I’d venture to suggest that this furore is a direct result of sexism.
I am used to the right wing media having a go at feminists. That happens weekly. Women in the spotlight consistently have their arguments reduced to ‘how patronising’ they are, to the ‘colour of her jacket’, to their ‘militant feminist agenda’. According to the Sun, Harman is regularly teased by Labour MPs for her obsession with "the sisterhood”.
But, what has really shocked me over the last few days is the number of Party members participating in the mockery and deliberate misrepresentation of what Harriet Harman said in the Times.
This blog from John Prescott, in particular, shocked me. In the blog Prescott deliberately misrepresents Harman’s interview to somehow suggest it was a renewed bid at the leadership, before moving on to make some meek points about the importance of a meritocracy. His posture of sorrowful paternalism creates the impression that he is disciplining a naughty child. In my view, he is the one being unprofessional, not her. Fine, disagree with the proposal and talk about meritocracy if you must, but engage as a discursive educated adult, not in that sickly, self-satisfied, holier-than-thou kind of manner.
So, John, at worst, you’ve revealed yourself tangentially opposed to the equalities agenda your party has promoted. At best, you need to read things more carefully before you fire off your response.
I am the first to criticise Harriet Harman when I don’t think she is doing enough for feminism. There are a number of things that Labour is yet to achieve for equality – there are still pityingly few women MPs, the rape conviction rate is an absolute disgrace, the pay gap is showing no signs of improving etc. Ask me what she has done, though, and the list is definitely a long one.
I refuse to follow what appears to be the trend to mock and despise her, because I want there to be more days when the person leading this country is proud to call herself - or himself - a feminist.
Olivia Bailey
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
AND NOW THE UNIONS ARE TO DEBATE STILLETO HEELS IN THEIR CONFERENCE, THE WORLD HAS REALLY GONE MAD..
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5065f8ba-82c0-11de-ab4a-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
However, for what it is worth I will point out the error of your ways...
The men you are discriminating against could well be individuals that have come from the most deprived backgrounds imaginable... and clawed their way up through poverty, poor education and poor opportunities to become potential PPC's - and now having struggled and strived, you take one look in their underpants and because of what you see, you slap them back down.
And some how you think this is good for equality...
If there is inequality, attack those who have already benefited from it, not those who have no responsibility for it at all.
If any one in labour should make way for more women then it should be the older men at the top of the labour party (who will have actively benefited most from labours earlier oppression of women) who should get out and make way for women, not the men barely even at the bottom.
Or - am I missing the objective? Maybe the aim is not for a labour party of equals -- but for a labour party where *everyone* has benefited from sexism against others (the men against women and the women against men).. that is some kind of equality I guess... but pretty disgusting...
As well as being representatives FOR the people, Parliament should be representative OF the people. That means not just a more equal gender balance, but also a more equitable proportion of people from across all ethnic groups and socio-economic backgrounds. We need an end to parliaments consistently made up of an overwhelming majority of white, middle-class, privately-schooled, Oxbridge-educated males.
But engineering shortlists to bring about these much needed changes is anti-democratic and unfair on otherwise good candidates that happen not to tick any of the minority boxes. I want candidates to be selected on the basis of their inherent qualities and abilities, not on their gender. That means encouraging more women to come forward as candidates for selection. Open primaries may well be part of the solution to this problem.
What, by staying away from what was supposed to be her big announcement of a half-baked initiative in a big strop?
"Aside from the rather witty, but perhaps ill-judged, Lehman Sisters joke"
Ill-judged because a woman came up with the idea of CDS's, perhaps? And a British woman, to boot?
"Harman has clarified her comments from the weekend clearly, and reasonably."
Ah, so because she's a politician she gets the chance to "clarify" (i.e., rewrite and airbrush) her remarks when they cause outrage?
Perhaps most women have just got better things to do with their lives than bully people and steal their money. Did you ever think of that?
And I'm shocked that it's acceptable to investigate and attack your background, assuming things about private tutoring from sod all. The patriarchy really are desperate.
The difference with your view is that the "50%" should now have the other 50% removed from competition. Does that mean they aren't up to it and we will have 2nd rate female MPs who only got elected because they needed easier selection processes?
Don't stand and moan about how few there are, stand for election.
And Rachelle, why is it contentious? Am I abnormal in wanting the best 'person' to do the job? I honestly don't care if it's a he or she (or tg for that matter) as long as they can do the job.
Personally I think there should be more women MP's but there are not enough standing as far as I am aware. And all women selection is not the way forward as it smacks of in-equality and p****s people off - women included. Ask my other half, Mum, aunts etc!!
Can someone prove this line that "a balanced team makes better decisions"? Can I have some statistics? Reports? Case studies? Or is this just an opinion? A 50% split of male and female numpties will make a worse decision than a team of switched on 100% men or women...in my opinion. Or am I wrong?
I've worked at companies where to be honest, I'd rather have had the women filling the team as the were excellent whereas the blokes were, shall we say, not very good. And vice versa.
We need to get past this all women selection and make it on the basis of quality of candidate. If we had Alan Sugar as Minister for Equality and Men the women would be having a field day - and rightly so.
Yes we need equal rights, but with rights goes responsibilities. Even my kids know that. If people are given equal rights but don't use them, who's fault is that?
Sorry but to me it's like people that don't vote then moan about the government. Get off your a**e and do something about it!!
Equally I'm shocked it is acceptable that the commenters here are labeled the "patriarchy" and the claim that they are "desperate". Have a quick scan down the page, notice how anything that questions this article remains unanswered? When all else fails though, remember you have the 'misogynist' reference to fall back on. Much like calling someone a homophobe or a racist, it tends to stiffle the debate somewhat.
Equal footing when it comes to politics, wholeheartedly agree, so prove you can debate rather than namecall. Disagree with someone's comments? Say so and give a logical argument to why they are wrong, or even an illogical argument would do if it loses the insults.
From the Enid Blyton of political thought comes yet another self-seeking publicity opportunity.
And stamp your feet time? Yes it's a rape review that Hatty wants but No 10 doesn't - so Hatty won't go off to a meeting in Manchester because she doesn't get her way!
Anyway. it's great to have come fro a privileged background isn't it Hatty, so you can patronise and condescend in equal measure.
Harriet Harman has started this debate at the wrong time. This is the time that should be spent looking out towards the electorate and seeing what they want from a political party, not looking within and concentrating on something that shouldn't even be given media time. If you want 50% female candidates, heres an idea, just get on with it! Stop talking about it and debating it, just do it. It doesn't make the blindest bit of difference to the electorate because all we want is MPs to be honest and do their jobs. The majority wouldn't care if who you put up for election because they vote by colour anyway, whether it be red, blue, yellow or green, but why waste valuable time making an issue out of a non-issue.
And it is a non-issue. So what, so we've had thousands of male MPs over the past 90 years. Just incase you hadn't noticed women didn't even have the vote 80 years ago, times have changed a little since then, so your title for this article is not only misleading, it is bordering on dishonest.
So please, spare me the debate on how many Y chromosomes have passed over the steps of Parliament, get on with finding some half decent policies that will make me want to vote Labour and pretend for a minute, just one minute, that politicians are there to serve the electorate rather than spend their time deliberating whether there is an equal number of each sex, race or religion sat in the House. For crying out loud, you couldn't run a village fete with some of the MPs that are in there at the minute. They are so out of touch I doubt a Labour MP could manage half an hour in a social club without having to go outside for some air.
I notice you haven't answered me with regards to the timing of Harman's views, in fact you've just ignored it so you can make a pedantic point about the title of this piece. Shame really, because I would have thought it was a valid point all things considered.
No mention of the 'just get on with' bit either because what am I suggesting? Rather than making a big deal out of it and insinuating there are invisible barriers to women, it could just be done and no one would be any the wiser, but that wouldn't do would it? It has to be a prime political statement at a time when the country as a whole has little or no faith left in the establishment, when what should be happening is MPs dedicating their time to getting the electorate back onside, but no, an internal political debate which benefits the electorate about as much as the Parliament restaurants do is the way to go obviously. And do you really think the current cabinet, especially Harman, should be leading the debate on this? As it has been illustrated in the comments of another article, the cabinet is a closed shop and it would appear it is more important who your relations were rather than what your sex is.
Why listen to a logical political argument though? Not when you have an argument based on skewing the facts whilst willfully ignoring that times have dramatically changed in the past 81 years. Discrimination is discrimination, whether you view it as so-called positive discrimination or not, but please carry on down the now well-worn track of ignoring the obvious and it will make the women pushing this forward no better than the men who denied women the vote in the first instance.
Just get on with it? Do you not realise that there are hundreds of women trying to stand for selection who get knocked back by sexism that they encounter in Constituency Labour Parties? There are a wide range of sources to back this up – try Joni Lovenduski’s feminising politics which says that women’s selection is impeded by institutional sexism. Women in the Labour Party have been trying to ‘get on with it’ for decades – the problem isn’t what we are doing, the problem is sexism.
Why listen to a logical political argument? I’m very happy to listen to one. Comments such as ‘ignoring the obvious… will make the women pushing this forward no better than the men who denied women the vote in the first instance’ do not count as a logical argument in my view.
Work with a white, English, hetro-sexual,able-bodied man and don't like him - it's OK!!
If it was anyone else and you didn't like them it would be sexist, rascist,homophobic etc., etc.
Harman is a pain and always has been!!
BTW Ms/Miss/Mrs Bailey - Are you another posh, middle class, out-of touch, no idea of real life type person like Harman???
Have you ever lived for a few years on a Council Estate and tasted the life these people taste each day??
I disagree that there is a barrier to women and I don't accept that women get knocked back by sexism. There is a shortage of something in your argument, its called evidence. Can you prove that any woman has specifically been halted in their political aspirations due to sexism? Or is that something that you and others have presumed due to the fact that more men get selected than women?
You may believe that equality is something to concentrate on running up to the election, but it would appear to be being given a disproportionate amount of time at the expense of other issues. Maybe it is because I read too much online, or maybe it because I seem to live on the LL these days, but every five minutes it is equality this and equality that. Fine, nothing wrong with wanting equality but just incase you haven't noticed there is a little more going on out there at the moment than how many female MPs we have. Parliament is still suffering from the expenses scandal as it hasn't been dealt with. We're fighting wars abroad with the only gain being a steady flow of troops coming back in body bags. Our economy is in ruins and the people who brought it about are not being tackled. Families are losing their homes, their jobs and it might be wise to take a peek at the number of people becoming bankrupt.
The right time? I don't know, you tell me. Do you believe this is the right time to bring in legislation regarding equality when people are struggling in the jobs market as it is? Adding more bureacracy to an already difficult situation? With just under half a million jobs on offer and nearly two and half million unemployed? When politics is in such a mess, so mistrusted and each party is suffering every time they go to the polls, its the right time? Is it the right time to push all-female candidate lists forward when there is already a cynical view held by the electorate about how candidates are selected? I guess what I'm really asking is do you hold the equality issue above all else?
I did read your article and you are astonished that the media would dedicate so much time to 'feminist bashing' as you put it, whereas given our current political and economic circumstances, I am astonished it is being given any media coverage full stop and the reason for it recieving the media coverage: Harman's timing. You are ignoring the obvious.
'Ridiculous',you certainly got the description spot on,instead of deputising for Brown she is busy positioning herself to replace him with her endless equalities drivel and blatantant discrimination against white working class men.
Yes,more women MP's provided they are up to the job which clearly many of her female colleagues at Westminster aren't which of course happens when you use discrimination as the basis for selection,by definition you lose the ability to select a candidate based on merit.
Certainly her never ending rants must be worth at least an additional 30 seats to the Tories and it's not difficult to see why she was one of the very few ministers that were such poor performers they were sacked from Blair's cabinet.
Funny old world the Labour party live in.
We already know your opinion Guy, all the MPs should come from middle or upper class groups because that best suits you, but it doesn't suit everyone in this country. Blab on about how the middle class want this and the middle class want that if you want to, but you speak for a small section of society that generally more interested in their own opinion than that of the electorate as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, its the wrong time for a debate full stop over where MPs are being brought in from as it should be about policy and what the main parties are going to do to get us out of this mess, but when the time is right, then education should come into the debate over who is selected as an MP. Like it or loathe it, we live in a democracy which includes every single person in this country deciding how the country should be run, not just a small group of people who have been priveledged enough to go to a certain school.
And before you start with your whole intellect argument, there are people who are infinitely more intelligent than some who go to Oxbridge, but they will never have the opportunity to realise their potential and it is people like you Guy that stop them doing that. Because after all, if they are from the ranks of socialism, they are scum aren't they? Scum because they were born into an environment and income level that didn't allow for private tutors or the best schools, or are you going to go against the argument you made the other day about intelligence and where it comes from?
I fully accept that more diversity is a good thing, and that it does lead to a parliament that is more genuinely "representative" in the proper sense of the word. But there are limits to this argument: can't gay men run a policy for children perfectly well? Can't a public school educated minister see the importance of social equality? Can't a white man appreciate the need for greater social inclusion?
And none of this justifies yet another round of simplistic Oxbridge bashing.
I fail to see where I bashed Oxbridge, or indeed blamed Oxbridge for anything. Not quite sure where you got all that from, but nice to know what I actually wrote doesn't stop you assuming that.
And I'm sorry, but there are no limits to the argument of a diverse government made up from different backgrounds. Again, where did I say that a gay man couldn't run a policy for children or white man couldn't appreciate the need for greater social inclusion?
Before you jump in with your accusations of 'simplistic Oxbridge bashing' here's an idea, try reading the comment I have left and answering it rather than reading my comment and making up whatever comes to mind to make me sound like I'm having a pop at those who have had the priveledge to go to Oxbridge. If you're refering to the references to 'socialist scum', it might be worthwhile for you to review some of Guy's views on what he thinks of anyone who votes Labour, then revisit my comment where I am directly speaking to Guy.
More substantively, if you accept that a gay guy can run childcare policy, then I would have thought this does have some impact on how precisely the numerical balance of MPs has to represent different sectors in society. The question here is not one of equal *access*, it's whether you think quotas should be imposed, and for what aim. (I.e. quotas could be advocated to a) encourage more women to apply or b) because without them there would not be enough "empathetic" women to run childcare etc. These are separate arguments, clearly.) I wasn't "accusing" you of anything, I'm raising an issue.
Explain to me how the reality isn't a group of have nots empowering their political representatives to take other peoples money? If anyone doesn't want their money taken then what can they do? Not a lot, they just have to sit there like nice little boys and girls and accept it's for the "greater good", not their greater good but the greater good of those voting to have their money taken away.
I was at university with socialists and the usual mixed bag of marxists, militants and socialist workers and I have to say I've never been friends with a single one of them nor never will be.
As for the issue over Oxbridge and intelligent candidates. I'd vote for a graduate candidate for my MP every time over a window cleaner, dustman or shop assistant. I want an MP who intellectually is up to the job, not a low intelligence candidate who is there to fill some quota.
"they will never have the opportunity to realise their potential and it is people like you Guy that stop them doing that", how's that Bill? How do I stop them? Because I refuse to let them take as much tax from me as they and you would like? My responsibility is my own well being and that of my family, I couldn't give a damn about the those on the council estate down the road thanks.
If Labour can't sort out education in 12 years with all the resources at their disposal don't come bleating about it being anyone else's fault. But then you and your like can never have too much of other people's money to spend can you?
My views are simply that I'd like you and yours to go away and stop bothering me. I don't need government advice, help and guidance. You do not know better than I do how I should run my life and I'd like you and those of your political persuasion to butt out and take your notion of "greater good" and "community" and shove it.
As for the "small section of society" comment, wait for the next general election and see. My "section of society" is coming for your rotten failed government and your time is short now.
You then argue elsewhere that people are born with intelligence by citing that in one family you can have one sibling who is of low intelligence and another with high intelligence.
See what I'm getting at Guy? You're contradicting yourself again and proving that you're not only a hypocrit, but an idiotic hypocrit at the same time. Someone's background does not determine their intelligence and a particular brand of education does not guarantee that someone will be any more capable to represent the electorate.
And Guy, ever heard of the word democracy? The government that sits in Parliament is supposed to represent everyone in this country, whether they are a university lecturer or a milkman, so it stands to reason that both should be eligable to represent the electorate providing they are elected to do so by the public. Whatever your personal views on who you would like to see in government, democracy should allow anyone who has the right attitude and intellect to become an MP, whether they hold a degree or not. I say should because thats not really how it happens is it? Which may well suit you, but its beginning to get up the noses of the population in general.
It'll be interesting to see your attitude when the Conservatives tax you exactly the same as Labour have. I'm not pretending for a minute that Labour haven't wasted money, but the Conservatives are just as capable, if not more at wasting money.
As for intellect if you are supposing that your average dustman etc. has the same intellectual level as an oxbridge graduate then once again you part ways with reality.
With regard to tax, the difference is that the Tory party is instinctively the party of lower taxation and smaller government than Labour. Whether taxes drop immediately or in the mdium term they will eventually drop under the Tories, with Labour they keep going up and up to pay for their core vote who don't pay the taxes themselves.
My point remains the same, I don't need government to do much, it does not know best and I don't want it interfering in my life. Basically Bill this current Labour government has done nothing for me but lots to me. I wish it would clear off and leave me and others in peace as it sure as hell doesn't know what is best for me or my family. It isn't my government, it isn't my PM and I owe it not one tiny bit of loyalty.
I'll tell you where I am coming from. These institutions do not have a monopoly on the most gifted undergraduates. Indeed they appear to have a disproportionate amount of over crammed individuals from private schools (I refuse to call them public schools). All their courses are not the best in the University system. They do not have a monopoly turning out the best graduates.
How then do you compare a 2:2 or 3rd from Oxbridge with a 1st or 2:1 from another institution? Or indeed for that matter similar results in the same subject across different institutions.
However the kudos of the Oxbridge degree combined with many institutions (the BBC, civil service) preference for degrees from Oxbridge as they reflect the present status quo in terms of the make up of the senior executives and staff will mean that they will invariably have greater opportunity in the jobs market.
Some have argued that we need greater access for disadvantaged groups in entry to Oxbridge. Maybe. However I am more concerned that other institutions receive the accord that they deserve relative to that given to Oxbridge.
I would suggest graduates from other institutions have to prove their calibre whilst it is presumed that Oxbridge gradues possess calibre and these attitudes distort appointment on genuine merit.
Colin (Essex University with a chip on his shoulder)
Though an Oxbridge degree has not helped me at all professionally (a writer, especially of TV, has to be a 'man of the people' so I keep my background quiet) I do notice a bit of the 'old club' stuff in law, finance, and governance.
There's no doubt, because of their reputation, both Cambridge and Oxford attract some great teachers, and prestigious students (contemporaries of mine include Stephen Fry, Emma Thomson, Tilda Swinton) but that does not make then education or the output as a whole so much more exceptional.
Among the people I work with and know, most of the smartest and the best mainly didn't go to Oxbridge (some didn't go to Uni at all).
An all-women (or -men, -white, etc) shortlist in my constituency will result in no vote for the candidate, whatever their party. I cannot condone this sort of guff!
PC gone raving mad - leaving the lunatics running the Millbank asylum!
Clare Short - yes; she has more bollocks than the whole of the current cabinet put together but Harriet 'dubious expenses' Harman no thanks, rather vote Lib Dem, Tory, BNP anything but more vacuousness from Nu Labour.
If I ever met a woman MP parachuted into a safe seat on an all women list I'd simply ask "why weren't you good enough to be selected in open compeition? Do you feel so inferior you need 50% of the population bared from standing for selection?".
The same applies to positions of state. Two women is fine if they are the best two candidates. If not are Labour really arguing for the deputy prime minister of the UK not to be in place on merit alone?
I don't think the Labour party realise how stupid this is making them look. That though is pretty standard of late.
Also I don't believe in All Women selections, because one it allows men to think, say and believe that the women are only there because they are woman. Which to a point is true but at the same point, the men who are their are only there because they are men, but no one would ever say that.
I believe that for things to be equal, we need to work out who is the person that is best for a job (regardless of gender) and then elect those people in to the jobs. Doesnt matter in there isnt a balance of genders as long as the person elected has been elected on their merit and not on their gender.
As the most important thing is to ensure that the people who we elect into these jobs, have the experience and knowledge to do the job, and are not just their to make the numbers up.
You don't improve the lot of women by forcibly installing them in positions of power. Forcing equality is not the same as having equality. Its the same with affirmative action in the US. For every woman advanced a man is held back - is that fair?
When I heard this I thought Harman had lost her mind, I can't imagine anyone in this country believing that discriminating against men like this is any better than the same against women. What would have happened if Brown had said "women can't be trusted to run anything on their own"?
Don't you just love equality?!!
If you want a parliament that refelects the make up of the population can you advise me what percentage of the electorate were educated at Oxbridge and what percentage of seats are held by Oxbridge graduates?
The equalities/diversity agenda is one that should be supported. However the cause is damaged because those articulating this agenda appear to this increasingly cynical individual as people who use equalities arguments as a resource to support their own personal career aspirations and once they have got to where they are seeking to go they quickly forget those arguments (Trevor Phillips, Barbara Follett).
I think we also need a more sophisticated approach which includes consideration of class. How inconvenient for the middle class advocates of equality.
As a middle-class, white, male (albeit from a working class family)I would happily compare the life chances I have had, despite these advantages, with Ms Harman's.
A true equalities agenda is one that takes on the New Labour, Oxbridge educated, nomenklatura. Will you sign up?
Colin
She'd wouldn't have half the problems she's having if she'd said that an all-female cabinet would be just as bad as an all-male cabinet.
I do not care what gender politicians are as long as they are the right people for the job, they have talent, skill, ability and integrity. I don't care for the colour of their skin nor their religious beliefs; I care about what they believe in.
I don't care for Harriet's view, the idea that men cannot be trusted is not striking out for equality in the sense I understand it. It is striking out to deminish the rights of one gender over the rights of another.
In other words, Ms. Harman believes that the reverse of the symptom is the cure.
I'm not going to mock her; I actually pity her because I cannot see how someone so wrong and so able to misjudge the mood of the country has got as far as they did.
In a meritocracy there would be someone better in her place.
I agree with her completely on the statements she has made. Though we have seen plenty of poor male and female MP's brought to light recently we have historically seen some wonderful female MP's whose passion and idealism I find to be a great inspiration. Harriet has every right to be raising this issue as to my mind there are still far, far too few women in Parliament. I want to see us continue to use AWS, I feel no sense of loss whatsoever at not being able to stand as a result of this measure and until we even the balance, give women MP's the support they need then I say we keep them.
A good article, thank you for clarifying Harriets statements, it is appreciated. I am glad I waited.
Interesting article. I'm very keen to see more women in Parliament - I think Britain, Labour and politics in general would greatly benefit. In fact, I frequently think that if there had been more women in the City, Britain's financial health would be far less delicate right now.
However, when all women shortlists came about, they were used as a mechanism to parachute 'New Labour' candidates into safe seats. In a lot of ways, it has often seemed to be more about the 'New Labour' movement than it has been about the feminist movement.
In principle, I think all women shortlists are important. However, because there's such a growing urgency and feeling that we need to reinvigorate British democracy and the party structures as a whole, I think we need to be embracing open primaries and breaking down a lot of the party structures, whilst at the same time making sure women are represented in Parliament.
Even yesterday's news about the Tory open primary has changed the tone of the debate about how candidates are selected, where they come from and how they're chosen, perhaps.
I did some research in to All Women Shortlists at University - and, actually, they aren't as closely tied to new labour as people assume. All women shortlists were being argued for by feminists in the party from the late 70s - and I can see no more evidence that 'new labour' candidates have been successful on all women shortlists than in open shortlists.
I welcome a debate about how we select our candidates - but I will always argue that we should be doing everything possible to give women an equal chance in whatever selection procedures we adopt.
Olivia
Just on a slightly separate note, I think LabourList should do a campaign to bring back Oona King - one of my favourite recent female Labour MPs.
"you get better decision making in a team if it’s a balanced team with women and men working alongside each other"
I would like to see some scientific evidence of this of would HH says that she got a feeling that this is the case?
that has been consistently undermined by Labour in government.
T0 me it's not ideological, it's just common sense; women MPS are more likely than men to think of issues that will affect women, and to counter some of the nonsense. If politics is about representation, it follows that women need to be doing some of the representing.
One example that comes to mind is from the days when family allowance was being introduced - women MPS had to fight hard to get it paid to mothers, so that there was no risk of irresponsible husbands boozing it away. The (Labour) male MPs hadn't thought of that. Similarly, if you are discussing modern health/maternity provision for women - men are never going to have as strong a sense of what would help women than women themselves.
The people getting worked up about this should ask themselves how happy they would be if the proportions were reversed and politics was dominated by women.
Lady Thatcher.
'nuff said.
The humour was supposed to be based on the old adage:
"Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it".
In my experience with the opposite sex, which is fairly extensive but possibly disproportionately unfortunate, most women are capable of being just as crooked as men, if not more cunning and possibly even worse. So bringing more women into politics is a good thing, insofar it increases equality and parity between the sexes in the Commons, but just by admitting more women to serve as MPs doesn't guarantee that a better politics will emerge, as evinced by three successive Conservative governments led by Baroness Thatcher in the eighties.
I was trying to be satirical not misogynistic!