Whoever You Want, As Long As It's A Woman

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

How David Cameron has the bare-faced cheek to say he wants to restore trust in politics and localise democracy yet in the same breath say the Conservatives will have all-women shortlists is really trying my patience with the Party.

This morning during the Speaker's Conference (which, btw, Brown appears to have bottled in its original format),  he described under-representation of women and ethnic minorities as “a real problem - a real problem for parliament and for my party”.  His answer is for CCHQ to choose 'suitable' candidates to put before voters, possibly in open primaries.  Suddenly, we're back in black, one-legged lesbian territory again.  Cameron can't pay lip service to people power by adopting the Fabians favourite tactic of smiling to your face but then stabbing you in the back.

This is from  ConHome:
This quote is typical from ConHome feedback from Associations involved in using them:
"We have to have the same number of women on the shortlist even if three or four times as many men apply. To be one of the shortlisted men you have to be very special. To be one of the shortlisted women you do not. Every Association suspects that the members of gender-balanced shortlists are not of equal talent."
and this:


It seems to me that Carswell (Open source politics means hands off) and Hannan  (How to make Parliament representative) are rowing upstream.

Also:  Cameron is told  not to abuse powers of patronage and Carswell has tabled an EDM: Parliamentary Elections (Recall & Primaries) Bill which at the moment appears to have only one signature - his own.  He asks that readers of his blog urge their MPs to sign up.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Comments

6 Responses to “Whoever You Want, As Long As It's A Woman”
Post a Comment | Post Comments (Atom)

dickiebo said...

"...trying my patience with the party..."
Mine too. I have blogged about this today and had my say - The best person for the job. Not 'one of these' and 'one of those'!!!!

20 October 2009 at 17:18
JuliaM said...

"How David Cameron has the bare-faced cheek to say he wants to restore trust in politics and localise democracy yet in the same breath say the Conservatives will have all-women shortlists is really trying my patience with the Party."

I haven't had any since they elected this pwer-hungry popinjay...

20 October 2009 at 17:42
GCooper said...

I'm with JuliaM on Cameron. I loathed him from the moment I set eyes on him.

Not even despising ZaNuLabur and all its works will make me vote Conservative while this arrogant little twerp is running the show.

20 October 2009 at 19:16
Fausty said...

Cameron got a b*llocking from the commentors!

For heaven's sake, I couldn't care less what colour, gender, shape or size the representative is.

I just want to be properly represented and the right of recall. Open Primaries seem to have disappeared from his agenda, too.

It all looks too much like PR to me. I doubt Cameron's interested in cleaning up politics any more than Labour is.

This is his opportunity to look as though Conservatives are reforming themselves.

Trouble is, they're barely conservative any more - whereas I am. So I'll be voting UKIP!

20 October 2009 at 20:46
banned said...

Hasn't Cameron learned from Labours mistake ? All those failed Blairs Babes and Ethnics who only survive by being foisted the House Of Lords ?

I would not mind if my Local Party nominated a black lesbian provided it was a local choice and she was up to the job.

21 October 2009 at 05:34
John M Ward said...

This would be a very bad move if it were adopted.

Now, as I understand it, it is just being "looked at" as a possibility for a handful of probably unwinnable seats — I believe just about all the safe and target seats have already selected candidates.

On that basis, it might be not only a way for Cameron to have had something to offer at the Speaker's Conference earlier this week, but also a litmus test of the grassroots reaction.

Bearing in mind that previous discriminatory exercises have received mixed reactions (rather than universal condemnation) it might have seemed worth getting a feel for our responses to an actual proposal that, I suspect, won't go ahead.

I think now that those reactions have been put about strongly and widely, and the point has been made, perhaps this topic should be allowed to fade away (unless something is tried by CCHQ!) so that we can concentrate on fighting the real battle.

22 October 2009 at 11:08