Stale, male and pale

[ladyblablah]

I bloody loved this description of the yawny white middle class man who dominate the upper echelons of many of our institutions and businesses.

On a very general level, I see very little inspirational about these grey types, just robotic, boxed in values, there 'by the grace of God'.

And at last a term to insult them.

Yay.

When you use those quotation marks, Monty, who are you quoting?

By the way, do you think someone who has set up and run a business might have a good background for politics?

That's a strange question Buffy and I'm not sure what prompts it. Have you understood my line of thought so far?

MPs and cabinet members are not always chosen because they're the best person for the job; there was pressure on Cameron to appoint more women to the cabinet and there is pressure on all parties to select more women MPs.
Therefore, we accept that in the current atmosphere, many women are chosen partly because of their sex. This is ok - we need representation and role models - but let's at least be honest about it.
One of our arguments for needing women in parliament is that we want to represent all sections of society - ergo, female MPs represent women on some level. It's dimwitted to only get half way through this logic and then get cross about it.
Given the additional scrutiny that women probably suffer, given their minority status and, therefore, importance and given their status as role models, it's important that they are credible. It's not important whether this is fair; moan about it all you want, but until women achieve parity in the house it has to be like that. At the moment, they are being judged as women as well as MPs.

I'm not sure it is important that they're credible. If one of the measures of privilege is the degree to which a member of the privileged class is seen as an individual vs a member of an underprivileged class being seen to represent the whole class (in this case women in parliament are "role models", men are allowed to just be MPs/cabinet members), then surely having a diverse range a crap and non-crap women who are evidently not all "role models" goes some way to unpicking the privilege?

If you meant me, Monty, what prompted it is that Esther McVey, who is 46, set up a business after leaving TV presenting. Since one of your concerns was her background in presenting, I'm curious whether you were also concerned about small business owners in politics.

Good post, where.

Fair point Where... an aspect I shall muse on.

No Buffy, why on earth would I be? I think it's a shame we have a less diverse house - a point I think Clarke made as he left. I'm not such an inverse snob that I don't recognise that Oxbridge educated lawyers offer an educated and rational intellect to proceedings, but I also think that other voices are required.

Again, I'm not Buffy.

But you've chosen to criticise Esther McVey's presenting background, but not comment on her business owning background.

"Therefore, we accept that in the current atmosphere, many women are chosen partly because of their sex. This is ok - we need representation and role models - but let's at least be honest about it." And lets be honest about men also being chosen partly for their sex, yet they are not expected to represent their sex and are not being judged because of their sex.

Sorry Bill. I don't know why I was seeing Buffy. Sorry also Buffy.

As I said, I don't understand what you're actually asking or insinuating.

They aren't being judged because of their sex, Scallop? Aren't they? Perhaps you'd like to check the OP. At last a term to insult them etc.

Your post, Monty:

"However, we do need to be alive to the dangers of tokenism; if you over-promote too much then people won't believe they are there on merit. Was an ex-GMTV presenter the right choice? I don't know."

Esther McVey has done a number of things apart from GMTV, including being a small business owner.

Still wondering who you were quoting in your last post of yesterday as well.

I think you're being a bit naive about how the newspapers represent people and the public form impressions.

yet they are not expected to represent their sex

They bloody well do, though, don't they? At least it's fairly rare to be able to say one genuinely represents women (or for that matter non-white constituents, or people of a class they don't identify with).

It's very rare for anyone to genuinely represent a class they don't personally identify as being?

I get the impression you don't like white men very much?

I disagree with forcing more women into politics for no reason other than they are women. We should employ people based on their ability to do the job, not what they have or don't have between their legs.

btw how come there are no quotas for black politicians? Aren't black people under-represented in politics?

Yes, we should employ people based on their ability to do the job. But That assumes a system that is completely fair and in which none of these things (race, sex) matter. That's not where we are right now.

I don't think there is a quota for female politicians is there? However, the same pressures to ensure adequate representation exist iro ethnic minorities. Stand by for Chuka Umunna as Labour leader in a few years; the Conservatives will choose a female leader to stand against him.

Monty, David Cameron has a target (not a quota) of one third of ministers being female by a certain date - possible 2015. He's now at 26%.

You asked about representation - when Keith Vaz became a minister in 1992 (five years after he became an MP so comparable to McVey's 4 years), did you feel he was representing British Asians and so had to be in some way "better" than the rest of his cohort of ministers?

Welcome to FWR and indeed to MN, fejexu. I hope you are enjoying your Sunday posting on a wide variety of threads.

Bill, how many times do you think you're going to bark up this same tree? There's nothing particularly clever about your question no matter how many different ways you find to frame it; the answer is already there in the thread.

If you missed it, Michael Gambon doing the BH appeal (spoof) on Radio 4's Broadcasting House at the end of the programme is worth Listening Again to.

How many times are you going to not answer where your quote on Friday was from?

And let's say I'm not particularly clever. Perhaps you could answer my questions in words of one syllable.

".... That's a strange question Buffy Bill and I'm not sure what prompts it. Have you understood my line of thought so far?

MPs and cabinet members are not always chosen because they're the best person for the job; there was pressure on Cameron to appoint more women to the cabinet and there is pressure on all parties to select more women MPs.
Therefore, we accept that in the current atmosphere, many women are chosen partly because of their sex. This is ok - we need representation and role models - but let's at least be honest about it.
One of our arguments for needing women in parliament is that we want to represent all sections of society - ergo, female MPs represent women on some level. It's dimwitted to only get half way through this logic and then get cross about it.
Given the additional scrutiny that women probably suffer, given their minority status and, therefore, importance and given their status as role models, it's important that they are credible. It's not important whether this is fair; moan about it all you want, but until women achieve parity in the house it has to be like that. At the moment, they are being judged as women as well as MPs....."

That's as articulate as I get, so you'll have to make do. Since writing this, however, I do take on board the point Whereisshe makes.

Apropos of nothing, a thought on simple questions.

Thank you.

But your premise is that the women chosen aren't the best people for the job - that there are some other better qualified men (or women) not chosen. I'm not sure why you think that. Which better qualified men would you have chosen? Which of the women that were chosen were well enough qualified in their own right and so would have made it to your cabinet?

So you think the female MPs promoted to the cabinet this week absolutely were the best candidates for the job and the fact that their promotion went towards DC's target of a third is completely coincidental?