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.

Yes there is a supply issue especially with nurseries because of discrimination...

Old article but it still applies

www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1095838/calls-discrimination-male-childcarers

Like I said, it's a different issue to MPs and needs to be treated differently. Men don't apply to be childcarers.

Women do apply to be MPs.

Sorry don't agree. Men don't apply to be childcarers specifically because of discrimination and perception.

I would love there to be 50/50 men and women and to have totally representative of society, but sorry do not agree that all female shortlists are the way to go.

by the way, I totally respect your views and it has been good to have a debate - sometimes on mumsnet people just resort to people being offensive to each other

I agree that men don't apply to be childcarers because of the perception and discrimination, but that would be of them actually performing the role, (you see it on MN).

I wonder if you're against positive discrimination because you work in a male-dominated environment. You made it on merit so you don't see why other women can't. The thing is that you are exceptional and have had to presumably put up with a lot of crap on the way. Do we want our Houses of Parliament to be like that?

Yes I had to break down some perceptions of what someone doing my role is. Hope I have in a small way managed to influence views and chip away at built in prejudice along the way (I don't subscribe to the view I have to act like a man to do it).

I suppose if I think about what I do I wouldn't want anyone to think I was there because I was a token woman... I want them to think I am there because I am best for the role given my skills. Neither would I want a situation where I could not employ for a role, just because they happened to be male. I suppose what I am saying is yes I think women do have to be good at what they do to be successful and influence change. Just having women will not influence views - if we have a load of women being bad politicians, this will sadly reinforce age old stereotypes .

Why the assumption that women elected through all-women shortlists will all be bad?

If there are enough women then at least they will have the chance to be judged on their own merits and not as 'the female MP'.

It does annoy me when people look down a list of female MPs that they don't like, check if they were elected from an AWS and then go 'look, she's terrible, that means AWS are terrible'

Jo Cox was elected from an AWS. I bet people who don't like them would say 'oh but she was good, she would have been elected anyway. How do we know that when chances for women without positive discrimination are so poor? How many Jo Coxes missed their chance due to discrimination? How many Philip Davies were elected in their place?

if you want the best MP, you have a shortlist that is non-gender specific.
if you want more women in parliament, you have women-only shortlists.
if you restrict a shortlist in any way, you reduce the chance of getting the best candidate.

Depends what's more important to you.

The thing is that you don't necessarily get the best MP with a non-gender specific shortlist, because people don't behave rationally and are influenced by unconscious prejudices. My MP is excellent because she is kind and hard-working and caring and thoughtful and persistent and diplomatic and community minded. But I suspect that those qualities would not have got her selected if she were on a shortlist with a showier, more outwardly confident man with a career politician's background. And we would have missed out on the better candidate.

yes, maybe you would. and maybe you'd have got someone who was not very good, but was put forward because she was a woman. I think both situations have arisen from this. I see little evidence that being a woman makes you a better MP.
I find it insulting that my democratic freedom of choice has to be modified because I don't behave rationally and are influenced by unconscious prejudices. Thanks. Why bother with elections at all then?
...and people wonder why the Labour Party is up the creek without a paddle? (answer, because they despise the electorate)

It's not the electorate that are biased and don't behave rationally, women get elected fairly once they are selected.

It's selection committees, the people who decide who to put forward as their candidate for a particular area who are biased. If it looks like whoever they put forward has a chance of winning, based on previous election data, they'll most likely pick a man. Because subconsciously, they believe that a man has a better chance of winning the seat for their party. They will probably believe that they have selected the best candidate.

I don't understand, why would a committee be biased and not the public at large? your average voter, on the same grounds, will behave the same way, won't they? Unless, of course, you save them from themselves by not giving them the option. Democracy is wasted on the masses, isn't it?

Because a selection committee is trying to select a candidate who will win them a seat. Voters vote on different grounds, such as which party the candidate belongs to and their policies.

so you don't believe voters are biased and don't behave rationally?

Voters are obviously biased and don't behave rationally otherwise we wouldn't be in the mess we're currently in

The Lib Dems are now doing all-women shortlists too. www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/how-lib-dems-learned-love-all-women-shortlists

If you think that AWS are a bad idea and that women will become equally represented in parliament through hard work and being good at their jobs, then look at the data.

Up till 1997 fewer than 10% of MPs were women. In 1997 that jumped massively for Labour. Why was that? Because Labour introduced AWS in 50% of winnable seats.
The Conservatives continued to bumble along appallingly represented until 2010. Why was that? Because in 2010 David Cameron introduced his A-list of women and minority candidates.

In 2015 the Conservatives continue to have fewer female MPs than Labour, even though Labour has fewer MPs in total.

There are more sitting male MPs now than there have been female MPs in the history of our Parliament

That's why positive action is needed (though personally I think all women shortlists are only one part of the picture, other changes are needed also)

AWS aren't good imo and as for what Cameron did don't pretend he gave a shit, he was just responding to criticism about his front bench being mostly white male millionaires. Just like he crumbled to the pressure to have the referendum he's just a weak waste of space and thankfully long gone

His front bench was mostly white male millionaires, why should that not be addressed?

This article is interesting, about the Tory selections for the 2015 election. What's most interesting is that it says 'this candidate will become the MP for X constituency in May 2015'. No 'will hope to become the MP'. And indeed when you look them up, they are the MP. It just shows that in safe seats, the selection process is way, way more powerful for deciding who becomes an MP than the election.

If we want more female MPs, it's in the selection committees' hands, not the voters' hands. And sometimes those hands need to be forced to stop churning out the same old same old.

www.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/meet-daves-secret-a-list/