are all women shortlists a good idea

[lucydogz]

this

Rachel Reeves saying that, where a Labour female MP has stood down, the party will have all-women short lists. Obviously, where a male Labour MP stands down, the short list wll be mixed.

Just as I think, well, I'm not keen on Corbyn, but we need a strong opposition, along comes something like this. Surely Labour should be looking for the best candidates at a time like this? If I was a voter, I'd want my choice of candidate based on ability, not gender.

I think Jess Phillips mistakes passion (i.e. being gobby) for intelligence (except, of course, when discussing transgender issues, when she's remarkably buttoned up)

How can you have excellence when you exclude potential candidates on the basis of gender?

Only 30% of MPs are female. How can you have excellence when you exclude potential candidates on the basis of gender?

Jess Phillips, Dawn Butler - also Pat Glass and Emily Thornberry. All awful

Check out Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson, Philip Davies, Michael Gove. All awful. Not sure what your point is, except that you apparently hold women to higher standards than men.

No - I think it is another form of discrimination. I would rather the best person for the job

Don't you ever suspect that when the best person for the job seems to overwhelmingly be male, that they are actually looking for the best man for the job?

Ok, so going by that logic, why are the best candidates for the job overwhelmingly male. Just natural superiority?

No ... just saying that to me all female lists feel insulting. I work in a male dominated role and I absolutely want to get there on merit, not be there to make up numbers or because someone said we have to have X number of women.

But women can't get there on merit. The system is stacked against them.

It's important that women are equally represented in parliament (and ethnic minorities, the disabled, LGBT and other groups).

We can't hang around any longer waiting for this to happen, because it won't.

Equality of opportunity doesn't always mean equality of outcome. Trying to affect a change in the outcome, no matter how well meaning, via gender specific shortlists is dangerous territory in my view. You leave the winner open to much greater scrutiny than if the position was available to all.

It' clear that if you're talented enough you can rise to the top in British politics, which is why plenty of the top positions are currently held by women. Teresa May (Prime Minister), Nicola Sturgeon (First Minister of Scotland), Caroline Lucas (Green Party leader) being clear examples. The law allows anybody over the age of 18 to become an MP, and that is rightfully the only stipulation that should be in place.

Theresa May being Prime Minister I think is a clear sign that the country is in the shit, tbh. Women are more likely to be promoted to leadership roles when an organisation is in trouble. When things are going well, guess who's back in the driving seat? That's reflected in the findings that women are more likely to be selected in unwinnable seats, and men in winnable ones.

www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/aug/05/fortune-500-companies-crisis-woman-ceo-yahoo-xerox-jc-penny-economy

www.democraticaudit.com/2015/04/10/the-glass-cliff-evidence-that-women-and-ethnic-minorities-contest-hopeless-seats/

Its funny how many people want women in the top jobs then complain about the women who become PM!

Seems they only want women who have the same political outlook as them.

It's only because there are so few women getting the top job that they are held up as representatives of their sex when doing that job.

There are loads of male prime ministers that have been complained about.

People don't go 'oh, men are shit at being Prime Minster, just look at David Cameron, he recklessly got us into a referendum that has left the country divided and in a mess, then resigned so he didn't have to sort it out'

They just say 'David Cameron was a shit Prime Minister'.

xkcd.com/385/
Replace math with "being Prime Minister"

I've enjoyed reading this thread, and thank you to the posters who've had the patience to explain their support of women-only shortlists. But I think it's ridiculous when a poster comes on and says 'look, women lead these parties' and the response is 'well, that's because those parties are in trouble'. You might think the Tories (and the Greens and the SNP) are in trouble, but the electorate don't. It's Labour that's in trouble, for all of these (mis-directed) attempts at equality. I think all this displays how little people in the party actually care about being elected.

I don't think Theresa May is significantly any better or worse than recent male conservative leaders. The idea is it's not the party that is in trouble but the general political situation. Many feel that she's on an impossible situation now and that could be the reason why she was successful in the leadership contest. All the other candidates dropped out. It's become known as the glass cliff.

Agree with pp that labour has bigger problems than all women shortlists.

well, that's because those parties are in trouble'

That's not what was said. The response referred to Theresa May specifically.

I think that women only shortlists are a bad idea personally.

It seems that yes there's a lot of sexism so that's what they're trying to combat. By fighting sexism with more sexism?

It's like saying if a child hits someone then you hit the hitting child to rectify the situation. It doesn't rectify it, it makes it worse.

We are trying to achieve equality not a sex war.

Dawn Butler wasn't selected through an all-women shortlist in 2015

Also, you might not care what gender your MP is but evidence shows that when there are fewer women in a parliament certain topics just don't get discussed - look up the time Harriet Hartman spoke about childcare in the Commons in the 1980s and was laughed at for raising an 'unparliamentary issue'

We are trying to achieve equality not a sex war.

Yes but if you hang around waiting for equality to happen, you'll be waiting until you are dead and then some. The only reason female representation is as high as it is at 30% is because of positive discrimination, from all-women shortlists and the conservative A-list. Before then it was about 18%.

The glass cliff (named re the glass ceiling), where women are more often put in charge in situations where failure is highly likely, is a real thing in business.

There are not enough UK political parties to make any meaningful generalisations.

Proof that I am not making up this phrase

Oxford Dictionaries blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2016/11/glass-cliff/

Forbes: www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2015/10/20/the-glass-cliff-phenomenon-that-senior-female-leaders-face-today-and-how-to-avoid-it/#8b36c4079c65

Financial Times www.ft.com/content/e2dcb1ca-49bf-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c

New York Times applies it to politics www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/world/europe/glass-cliff-uk-women-politics.html

When my former MP retired, the candidate for the next election was chosen from an all woman shortlist. She is a far better than her male predecessor.

If you turn this around and apply to another situation - how would that feel - e.g. all male shortlists for teaching jobs in primary schools (because there is a shortage and there is 50/50 boys and girls) - basically people would be shocked..... as I said above, OK yes there are fewer women overall in politics, but fundamentally I would rather get there on merit. I work in a male dominated environment and know what it is like....

Most MPs are not chosen because they are "the best".

They are chosen to run by the other members of their party, who are biased and flawed human beings who may have skewed ideas of "what a politician looks like", may have specific views of "what the public will like" and may have additional motives along the lines of "will this person support me".

Which MP gets the seat is decided by a vote where many people will always vote for the same party no matter who the MP is, and many will vote for a party based on nationwide issues not on the merit of their local MP.

Does that really sound like a meritocracy to you?

If discriminated-against groups try to make progress only by working hard and doing our homework and trying to fit into a system that is biased against us, it's going to take a very long time to make any progress.

The situation with male primary teachers is entirely different as there is a supply issue. Increasing the number of male primary teachers will be achieved by attracting more men to the profession. I don't think that there's any evidence that men are discriminated against when hiring teachers, and certainly not when promoting them, as there is a disproportionate number of male primary heads to male primary teachers.

There isn't a supply issue for female MPs, what has been found time and time again is that where women stand for selection, they are mostly overlooked in favour of men. They are discriminated against in winnable seats, because they don't look like a winning candidate (the mental image of an MP is a white male).

You can say that education or letting talent rise to the top would be better, but that only got us to 18% representation in nearly 100 years. It is important that the people who represent us and set the laws of the country at least attempt to reflect the population of the country at the most basic level. If we can't even manage to get females into parliament, what hope do minorities have? Using positive discrimination measures to get these candidates into parliament in large numbers will help to overwrite the narrative of what an MP looks like and should make them less necessary in the future.