Plaid Cymru has announced Leanne Wood as their new leader, on the same day the Electoral Reform Society prepares to issue a highly critical analysis of women’s representation in the Scottish and Welsh parliaments.
Wood is a former probation officer and women’s support worker from Rhondda. She beat two other current assembly members to the post: Elin Jones and Dafydd Elis-Thomas, the former presiding officer.
As the new leader, Wood will have to steer the party through an interesting time in Welsh politics. Labour now governs the Senedd alone with half of the sixty seats, after a disappointing showing for Plaid in last year’s elections, making them the third largest party after the Conservatives. Nonetheless, the party has begun to reinvigorate itself in the last few months, announcing a 23% boost in membership.
Interest in Welsh home rule is also increasing. The Commission on Devolution in Wales is holding its first public meeting in Swansea this evening, beginning a series of events for the Welsh public to participate in the ongoing constitutional debate about more powers for the Senedd. It seems fertile ground for Welsh nationalism to flourish, an opportunity recognised by the party’s chair Helen Mary Jones.
“The candidates have been saying themselves that we’ve very often won the argument but lost the election.
“We now have to start winning the argument and winning the elections, and that’s where our new leader will be leading us forward.”
Leanne Wood is Plaid Cymru’s first female leader. The party has never had a female MP in Westminster, but women are represented in the highest echelons of the party, with Jones as chair and Plaid MEP Jill Evans as President.
The new study into women’s representation in devolved legislatures is shortly to be published by the Electoral Reform Commission. According to The Guardian, the “report accuses all the large parties of allowing the issue of equal representation for women to ‘fester’, undermining the ethos which underpinned their foundation in 1999 to improve equality, accountability and wider democracy.â€
In last year’s elections, the number of women AMs declined to 24, or 40% – the lowest since the Assembly was founded in 1999. The number of women elected to the Scottish Parliament is not falling but stalling, increasing to 45 MSPs, but still lower than the 2003 intake of 50.
Both Scotland and Wales have been leading on progress in women’s representation in politics in the last decade. The slippage, especially in Wales, is concerning, because diverse legislatures, which recognise and reflect the society they serve, are essential for good lawmaking and governance.
The electoral strength a diverse candidate mix can bring to a party appears to be recognised by Plaid, with party chair Jones calling for her party to consider all women shortlists a few days ago. With the election of Wood and her strong interest in women’s issues, I hope this progress continues.
Update: The Electoral Society Report, Women’s Representation in Scotland and Wales, is now available here.
#1 by Danny on March 15, 2012 - 4:09 pm
In my opinion all woman short lists are wrong.
The most popular contender should get the job.
#2 by Kirsty on March 15, 2012 - 4:16 pm
All women shortlists impeding the best or most popular candidate getting to stand is a straw man argument. There is never a perfect candidate, for politics or for any job: simply a set of criteria and a number of people who match this criteria to varying degrees. All women shortlists add an extra criteria in the essential category, and it’s added because a political party believes gender equality in its representatives is important. Even more important in the case of political selections, when merit itself seldom appears in the reasons why candidates are selected.
#3 by Ken on March 15, 2012 - 4:32 pm
“There is never a perfect candidate, for politics or for any job”
He didn’t say there was.
#4 by Fred Barboo on March 15, 2012 - 6:47 pm
I disagree with all women shortlists because they have the potential to produce some of the worst candidates. Like Jack Dromey.
#5 by An Duine Gruamach on March 16, 2012 - 5:08 pm
10 points!
#6 by Chris on March 15, 2012 - 4:47 pm
God forbid that all women shortlists might have prevented representatives like Eric Joyce or Bill Walker getting chosen as candidates.
Or maybe Danny thinks that no woman in Scotland could possibly have been a better candidate.
#7 by Danny on March 15, 2012 - 9:05 pm
Surely if the local constituency party had a preferred female candidate then they wouldn’t be there in the first place. What we need is more encouragement for people from all backgrounds to be brave enough to stand for selection within their chosen party, not positive discrimination.
Positive discrimination is still discrimination. Say I’m a popular figure within the local constituency party and wish to stand, why should I be stopped just because I am a man?
#8 by Kirsty on March 15, 2012 - 9:11 pm
Simply, if your political party has decided that improving the representation of women is a more important goal. Why should you get selected just because you’re a popular male figure in your local constituency who wishes to stand?
#9 by Ken on March 15, 2012 - 10:10 pm
“Why should you get selected just because you’re a popular male figure in your local constituency who wishes to stand?”
I dunno – democracy?
#10 by CassiusClaymore on March 15, 2012 - 4:52 pm
All women shortlists? Yes – let’s eliminate gender discrimination by, er, discriminating against men…….
#11 by Jeff on March 15, 2012 - 5:02 pm
It’s always good news when these barriers get broken – Obama elected in US, Ruth Davidson elected to Scottish Tories and Leanne Wood here but power devolved is power retained. The three aforementioned leaders did it the hard way, overcoming various degrees of prejudice and winning without any special treatment. That’s real progress.
Equality gained artificially (given by men) through all women shortlists is not real equality. I’d be dissatisfied with that solution if I was female.
It is more important to look into what is putting females off getting involved in politics at a root level rather than creating arbitrary measures that will give the few that are already involved, yourself included of course Kirsty, a free leg up that doesn’t really fix the problem.
#12 by Indy on March 15, 2012 - 5:11 pm
So Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland don’t know anything about real equality eh?
And here was me thinking they were actually the world leaders.
In my view It simply cannot be a coincidence that the countries with the lowest rates of child poverty, lowest income inequality, best outcomes and quality of life etc were also the countries which pioneered gender equality across the board including in politics.
When you strip away all the arguments that, for me, is just an unarguable case.
I appreciate it is a difficult concept for many people but I think they need to take a step back and just look at the facts.
#13 by Jeff on March 15, 2012 - 5:19 pm
One party in Sweden (Social Democrats) use zipped lists (as Labour do at Holyrood) which is a far cry from all women shortlists. The Danish Social Democrats abolished a 40% quota for females in 1996.
(source – wikipedia)
Invoking Scandinavia is usually a quick way to win an argument with me, but not here I’m afraid. And I have no problem grasping the concept thank you very much.
#14 by Indy on March 15, 2012 - 5:30 pm
They have all used mechanisms to promote women at one point or another and the key thing is they started it a long time ago. Thus changing the culture.
And I really don’t think you do grasp the concept. As long a politics is grasped as a contest between individuals – whether between individuals contesting elections or between individuals contesting to be selected as a candidate then there will be no equality and politics will continue to be dominated by men.
And people will continue to say that people should only get elected on merit thus implying that all the people we have currently representing us are the cream of the crop.
That is so patently not the case I don’t know how anyone can make those sorts of statements without bursting out laughing.
#15 by Craig Gallagher on March 15, 2012 - 6:22 pm
“When you strip away all the arguments that, for me, is just an unarguable case”
What a bizarre sentence. And more importantly, a flawed dichotomy. All-women shortlists, like affirmative action programs, are not progressive. If you are having to force people into excluding anyone on sexual or racial grounds, you’re demonstrating pretty clearly that you don’t have a persuasive argument at all.
The point is not to increase women’s representation in Parliament, the point is to increase the prominence, relevance and respect for women’s issues in Parliament. It is not true that only women can represent women, any more than it is true than men can only represent men. They may by intuition have a more sympathetic position to women’s issues, but that is by no means the case across the board. Look at Margaret Thatcher, for crying out loud.
I am not for equal gender ratios in Parliament. I am for gender equality in Parliament. What do I mean by that? I mean a broad consensus reached across the political and social spectrum that men and women’s rights are of equal value and importance, and that prejudicing one (allowing for a degree of give and take on, say, maternity versus paternity leave) in favour of the other is wrong. It does no political party, politician or voter any use to have their choice more artificially restricted than the parties already achieve.
We should be aiming for candidates, male or female, who share our values, not our genitalia.
#16 by Craig Gallagher on March 15, 2012 - 6:26 pm
I should add, this is the case as long as we’re voting in a system where popularity is the deciding factor, meaning the number of votes a party obtains. If that is your base system of choosing representatives, you can’t take from people (or constituency parties) the right to decide whether they want a man or a women representing them. Otherwise, you open up a can of worms about what happens in a constituency with more men than women and yet has a female MP.
#17 by Indy on March 15, 2012 - 7:03 pm
But we don’t have that. We have, particularly in Westminster, a juvenile confrontational system and I am afraid that the Scottish Parliament is too much in the same mould.
I have no axe to grind on this issue, it means nothing to me personally and I did not start out from the position of supporting quotas or zipping or whatever else.
But when the “meritocratic” argument is made it really gets my goat because it is simply not true. Nobody could possibly look at the serried ranks of MPs and indeed MSPs and say all of those people are there on merit. That is just not a serious argument.
So what is the alternative? I am more than willing to listen to them but as I see it the Scandinavian countries have a much better political record than us on all kinds of issues particularly on equality and it seems clear that gender equality is much more important to them than it has been, and is, to us.
So maybe I think they have got something right that we have got wrong. And maybe we ought to seriously consider what that is.
#18 by Craig Gallagher on March 15, 2012 - 7:33 pm
I accept that the current system is not meritocratic, in fact I vehemently agree with you on that. But I don’t think quotas are the way we fix that, I genuinely don’t. The people who are elected representatives right now aren’t there because they’re men or women, they’re largely there because of the service/favours that they’ve given to their respective parties, regardless of actual talent or drive to succeed.
I do think we need to get towards a more meritocratic system, but I’m not sure I have a method to get us there. I just know that I can’t support quotas, whether gender-, race- or even religion-based. Artificial inflation of ratios doesn’t solve the basic talent problem. More talented women would be and are extremely welcome in the political process, and there should absolutely be a lessening of restrictions that prevent them getting there. But that doesn’t mean we should shove everyone else off the road to rush them to the head of the queue.
#19 by Colin Dunn on March 15, 2012 - 7:37 pm
Can I vote for a rating mechanism for this site, please, as this gets a click from me? Frankly I don’t care what the gender of my parliamentary representative is, but I do object to positive discrimination in any form as it exacerbates the problem, instead of curing it.
#20 by Colin Dunn on March 15, 2012 - 7:39 pm
I should say my comment was in response to #11, but the threading here doesn’t show this.
#21 by Craig Gallagher on March 15, 2012 - 10:26 pm
Well, I’m now #13 but thanks for the kind words! Better Nation is being very nice to me these days!
#22 by Gary Cocker on March 15, 2012 - 6:37 pm
In the NFL, the “Rooney Rule” has exponentially increased the number of black coaches at the highest level (beforehand, only 1 out of 32 NFL head coaches were black when the majority of players were from an African-American background). The Rooney Rule stipulated that at least one ethnic minority candidate had to be interviewed for each available post, and about 5-10 years on there’s now about 9 black head coaches. It’s far from perfect, but it is progress (and has been considered for English football, where the same dichotomy exists). Perhaps a rule stipulating that a shortlist must reflect the gender balance of the constituency/region (so by and large 50/50) could be a ‘middle ground’ between the status quo and all-women shortlists?
#23 by Jon B on March 15, 2012 - 6:44 pm
I’m delighted. Leanne is a committed socialist and has become a very effective operator since being elected. I think she will be an outstanding leader of Plaid given the time and space needed to rebuild the party electorally. A brave and radical choice from a membership often castigated for being too small-c conservative and more interested in language rather than social issues.
#24 by Brian Nicholson on March 15, 2012 - 6:50 pm
Perhaps we should consider dual representation constituencies with a ballot to elect a male representative and a ballot to elect a female representative. This would ensure a balance between male and female members in the parliament.
#25 by Barbarian on March 15, 2012 - 7:01 pm
I am against any shortlist which rely on a specific category. I’m also against a party having a specific minimum number / percentage of politicians/candidates based on sex / race or any other reason.
The best candidates should be selected. Nowadays, the “old boy network” is gradually dimishing, although still prevalent in some areas.
The law on on recruitment could be applied in a similar fashion. Complaining that there are too few women could attract unwanted accusations of positive discrimination.
Women have made strides in politics. But having a woman is not necessarily ideal: look at Patricia Hewitt. Screwed up the NHS then ran away.
Let’s focus on getting good strong candidates into politics by removing the barriers, rather than forcing targets. Leanne Wood has proved it possible.
#26 by Indy on March 15, 2012 - 7:14 pm
So you actually believe that the people elected to parliament – all those folks who were lining their own pockets by flipping their houses etc – they were the best people for the job? I mean – seriously? Because I think the canteen ladies could probably have done a better job than many of them.
#27 by Jeff on March 15, 2012 - 7:17 pm
They weren’t the best people for the job so we need to get more people involved in politics, male and female.
#28 by Allan on March 15, 2012 - 7:27 pm
“Women have made strides in politics. But having a woman is not necessarily ideal: look at Patricia Hewitt. Screwed up the NHS then ran away.”
Ah, but the thing about Patricia Hewitt is that she was a member of the Labour equivilant to the “old boy network”, she first gained prominance as a leading Kinnockite and worked alongside another leading Kinnockite Charles Clarke. Funnily enough she now works for Boot’s parent company…
#29 by Allan on March 15, 2012 - 7:01 pm
I’m not quite sure what the issue is with Danny’s argument, he pointed out that he thinks that all women short list are wrong, which they are. He pointed out that the “most popular” candidate should get the job – a better way of putting it is that it should go to the best candidate. Again I’m not sure what the issue is here, the best candidate should get the job, regardless of gender, race, age or sexuality.
It is of course importaint to remove any barriers to equal representation. However, there are probably other better steps than “All Women Shortlists” that could be looked into and implemented. As Jeff said, looking at ways of attracting women into politics would be a better step.
BTW, anyone else looking forward to seeing how Ms Wood performs on “Question Time?”
#30 by Kirsty on March 15, 2012 - 7:29 pm
A really important starting point is that women aren’t a minority in society. If you think democratic structures should be representative of society, there should then be many more women in elected positions. AWS are a crude measure, and I’d love for them to not need to exist. But they work. They work to improve women’s representation and in terms of selecting candidates for constituencies they’re probably the only measure to work. I want them to be a temporary tool for parties, along with others like zipping, to make women politicians so commonplace, so usual in politics, that internal party selections become gender blind. Once this culture change is achieved, AWS won’t be needed, because women will come forward, as many of the comments above want them to, and stand, because the barriers that face women candidates will no longer be there. It’s not good enough to just wistfully hope more women will come forward without using mechanisms like AWS (and mentoring, training….) as well.
#31 by Craig Gallagher on March 15, 2012 - 7:43 pm
Democratic structures shouldn’t be representative of societies. They should only be representative of the VIEWS of societies. Having a predetermined gender, ethnic or religious spread for any representative assembly by its very nature is anti-democratic, as it excludes certain viewpoints to conform a particular structure.
The point is that everyone should have equal access and influence on politics, whether man, woman, Christian or Muslim, Caucasian or Asian. The problem at the moment is the party structure stifles a lot of this, because selection for candidacy is based on service records and, frankly, who you know. I don’t deny there is a gender imbalance, and even a degree of misogyny, in how those decisions are currently made. But if the point is to marginalise how out of touch such views are, I can’t agree that quotas will do that.
At best, it’s meeting their point on equal terms: where they deliberately exclude women, you deliberately include them. At worst, it’s missing the point. Culture changes can’t be an end in and of itself, you have to have an idea of what you want that change to be. If, as here, it’s greater political representation of women’s views in Parliament, why wait til we have more women in power to achieve this? That seems to me more wistful than people thinking AWS will do this alone. Push for changes now (as I’m sure you do on a regular basis, Kirsty) and marginalise the problems we are currently labouring under (no pub intended).
#32 by Craig Gallagher on March 15, 2012 - 7:43 pm
*pun intended
#33 by Indy on March 15, 2012 - 8:38 pm
Well that is where I disagree with you. I think democratic structures actually have to be representative of society in order to reflect the views of society. I’m not saying that has to be 100 per cent the case of course. But right now it is more like 100 per cent not the case – in UK terms anyway.
Like most people I look at the UK Cabinet and see a bunch of male, private school educated millionnaires. They are completely unrepresentative of most people. They impose cuts which are causing severe hardship in many cases, hardship which they themselves are incapable of understanding on a personal level because they have never gone without for one single day of their lives.
I will support the exact opposite of the system that put them in power.
#34 by Jon B on March 15, 2012 - 8:00 pm
what a pity that the comments on this article are largely from a couple of men getting humpty about all women shortlists and not, er, about the subject at hand (about a woman being elected in a non-gender-specific election).
All women shortlists are here to stay in at least a couple of the political parties in the UK, and rightly so.
#35 by FormerChampagneSocialist on March 15, 2012 - 8:16 pm
Discrimination is discrimination. If you want to discriminate against men, crack on. But don’t claim you’re committed to equality.
#36 by Kirsty on March 15, 2012 - 8:36 pm
So how can women candidates compete with the hundreds of years of privilege men have enjoyed in politics? After decade upon decade of all-men shortlists, I think positive action is necessary to make our legislatures more democratic and representative of society.
#37 by FormerChampagneSocialist on March 15, 2012 - 8:50 pm
I fail to see the relevance of history. And I just can’t accept that the correct response to discrimination is more discrimination. How would you feel if your son (say) was the victim of anti-male discrimination?
Women who want to succeed in politics, or anything else, should just do the same as everyone else who succeeds. Work hard and, if you fail, work harder. Make your own luck.
#38 by Kirsty on March 15, 2012 - 8:55 pm
If my son couldn’t go forward for a party political selection because it was an all woman shortlist, I would hope he would see the greater good of the situation rather than dwell on his own narrow ambitions.
Hard work only helps you win candidate selections if you can get into the selection in the first place.
#39 by FormerChampagneSocialist on March 15, 2012 - 9:38 pm
So, gender discrimination is OK as long as the victims are men? I don’t see the logic.
#40 by Indy on March 15, 2012 - 9:03 pm
So what you are saying is that politics is overwhelmingly dominated by men because women are afraid of hard work.
You see this is how someone like me ends up supporting gender balance even though I didn’t start out that way.
#41 by FormerChampagneSocialist on March 15, 2012 - 9:41 pm
No, didn’t say that. But those who fail should quit moaning and try harder. Regardless of their gender.
#42 by rullko on March 16, 2012 - 1:13 am
Why do you think it is that politics is dominated by men?
#43 by Don McC on March 16, 2012 - 6:59 am
What percentage of women are interested enough to go into politics compared with the percentage of men interested enough to go into politics?
Is there genuine discrimination, in which case there is an argument that AWS is simply re-addressing the balance or are we in danger of slanting the selection process to much in favour of women? At the end of the day, are we denying the electorate a good candidate who just so happens to be male in favour of a much poorer one who gets there simply because she is a women?
#44 by Kirsty on March 16, 2012 - 7:30 am
I think the notion that women are less interested in getting into politics than men is false. Politics is very much still formed in a male image, and women and men approach politics differently, both in agendas to pursue and the style in which it’s done.
It’s not good enough to assume that just because fewer women come forward to stand as candidates, that it’s simply because they’re not interested. Such a stance dismisses the barriers that face women, and other groups like BME people, LGBT people and young people from standing for election.
In terms of denying the electorate candidates, this happens in our current system at the moment, because the selection process means parties select what candidates get put up for election in the first place. Everyone involved in politics know many good people, women and men, being denied the chance to stand because of their party’s machinations.
#45 by Indy on March 16, 2012 - 7:59 am
I am sorry but that is exactly what you are saying. “Work hard and, if you fail, work harder. Make your own luck.”
That’s a pretty clear statement. If womenj don’t get selected as candidates it is becaise they haven’t worked hard enough or made their own luck.
Whereas every single person actively involved in politics knows that the reason many women can’t devote 24 hourts a day to building up a political career is becaise they have too much work to do, not too little. Children to be cared for, shopping to be done, homes to be cleaned, elderly relatives to be looked after, never mind their day jobs.
A big part of the reason men can devote more time to building up a political career than women is simply because they have more of it. It is much easier for them to put themselves first.
I’ve seen this time and time again. It’s why men can have partners who are not active SNP members and still become candidates or elected members but I don’t know a single woman in the SNP in the same position who does not have a partner who is also in the SNP and therefore understands and is supportive of the requiremet to devote so much time to the job.
Whatever discussions there are about how to improve the representation of women must recognise those basic factys and come up with some kind of solution otherwise nothing will ever change.
What attracts me to the Scandinavian model is that things do appear to have changed there. There is more equality between men and women – men share more of the household and family work as well as women getting more equal treatment in the workplace. The two going hand in hand. As I said to Jeff it seems to me that it cannot be a coincidence that their society has developed in this way and that they also pioneered the concept of gender balance in politics.
Of course I am not saying absolutely everything is perfectb in Scandinavian countries but it’s a damn sight better than the UK and surely Scotland should be looking north as well as south when we consider our options.
#46 by Craig Gallagher on March 16, 2012 - 5:34 pm
Now this, I have no trouble completely agreeing with. Your point about time spent on the job is a well made one and something completely missing from the above debate. That’s the culture we need to change, but it goes deeper than the simple problem of not enough women in Parliament. We still live in a very male-dominated, slightly misogynist society where men and women don’t enjoy equality across the board. Attitudes need to be corrected in that regard.
#47 by Jon B on March 15, 2012 - 8:41 pm
^^ spot on
#48 by JPJ2 on March 15, 2012 - 8:52 pm
This is a good choice for Plaid Cymru as it gives them a leader whose roots are in the non-Welsh speaking part of Wales (although she is learning the language).
Until Plaid Cymru can appeal across all Wales, their ability to make SNP style progress (or anything like) is capped.
OT-Looking forward to hearing Humza Yousuf on QT tonight.
#49 by Marcus Warner on March 15, 2012 - 9:26 pm
As a friend and huge supporter of Leanne’s campaign I am naturally delighted at the result. Be the change you want to be, by electing Leanne I believe the members have recognised and acted on that.
I work for one of the ladies mentioned who lead Plaid, so won’t add anything more than to say that we have so many talented women in Plaid that I don’t believe we need all women shortlist. Women won most of the regional selections (which at the moment are often our best chance of elections in a fair number of places in Wales) in 2011, one of which included Leanne of course. In fact, had Nerys Evans not stood down of being a regional AM to fight a constituency all regions bar the North would have voted for women.
I don’t believe Plaid need all women shortlists, we just need to work hard to make more of our seats winnable. Provide the votes, then our talented women will take their fair share of those seats.
#50 by Marcus Warner on March 15, 2012 - 9:30 pm
JPJ2,
I agree, but I think the issue of the language is changing. A new cohort in the elecorate is the Welsh medium parent as I call them. Welsh medium education is exploding in the East of the Country, it being used as a ‘community language’ in the West is worrying eroding. It will take a dual track approach, as well as balancing the fact that we unfortunately have to talk about how English immigration is a big part of it, but ultimately the make up of the ‘Welsh language debate’ is changing.
I don’t speak Welsh (well I am an intermediate learner), my kids have started or will start Welsh medium education, that is the experience of Leanne Wood too, as well as thousands of young parents who kids will only know a devolved education system.
That I believe presents a massive opportunity for Plaid, albeit one which I think they will still need to respond to effectively.
#51 by Ben Achie on March 15, 2012 - 9:34 pm
It’s the culture that’s wrong in politics. Just look at the gender balance in the above. Curing it will require something far more radical than anything currently on offer in mainstream Scottish politics. Few people want to get involved in the current set-up, full stop. It is far too geekish, requires a disproportionate commitment of time, and a concomitant subjugation of independent thought processes.
#52 by Kirsty on March 16, 2012 - 7:32 am
I completely agree. I am of course a geek, so no problems there 😉 but the latter two issues – time commitment and feeling unable to think independently – are major reasons why I personally find it very difficult to stay involved in proper party politics.
#53 by Barbarian on March 15, 2012 - 10:15 pm
Type your comment here
Can you at least read my posts before replying? I said what should be done; I never said the current lot are perfect. Dig through some of my other stuff and you will see I have very strong views on the standards I expect from politicians.
And bringing political correctness in is asking for trouble.
#54 by Barbarian on March 15, 2012 - 10:16 pm
Somethings gone weird! I was replying to Indy!
#55 by Barbara Gribbon on March 15, 2012 - 10:46 pm
Throughout the 90’s a fair bit of evidence was gathered wrt science jobs and grants that simply having a female name on a CV was enough to get a woman marked down relative to comparable CVs with a male name by both men and women. Women were actually discriminated against by unconscious bias. All female lists were one method of addressing this sort of problem, perhaps not even the least worst, but an acknowledgement that even being the best wasn’t always enough if you were a woman. However more recent studies seem to indicate that, at least in science, this is not so much of an issue now, so perhaps people can be educated out of that view. There are apparently other reasons women aren’t filling jobs as expected. Perhaps Ben Achie has the right of it here. Or perhaps politics isn’t as progressive as science 😉 Maybe we could try to find out? With evidence?
Rather that try to post all the links I’ll just link to Professor Athene Donald: http://occamstypewriter.org/athenedonald/2012/03/11/dangerous-assumptions/
caveat – she makes a few assumptions of her own, and the worlds of science and politics may not be completely comparable.
#56 by Don McC on March 16, 2012 - 7:02 am
The thing about AWS is, to me, the fact we’ve already run this experiment. What happened to the infamous Blair’s babes? How many remain involved in politics?
Besides, at Holyrood (since Holyrood appears to be in the firing line here), what percentage of the 4 main parties have women leaders? Should be be endeavouring to increase that percentage?
#57 by Kirsty on March 16, 2012 - 7:34 am
One election with AWS doth not a culture change make Don. And political leadership is only part of the equation – an important part, and I hope Leanne Wood’s leadership will help women’s representation in Wales.
#58 by Don McC on March 17, 2012 - 7:55 pm
“One election with AWS doth not a culture change make”
—
Actually, Kirsty, the point I was making was what actually happened to these women elected via AWS. Were most deselected when the local consitutency parties were not constrained by AWS? Did most simply decide the life wasn’t for them? Did Labour’s election defeat simply mean the electorate rejected them because they were Labour candidates, nothing to do with their sex?
#59 by Doug Daniel on March 16, 2012 - 11:37 am
Ruth Davidson and Johann Lamont lead the Scottish branches of their parties; the Scottish Greens have male and female co-conveners; and Nicola Sturgeon’s stature in the SNP is such that she might as well be co-leader, because she is given far more prominence than any other deputy leader I can think of. We also all know fine that she will take over from Salmond (becoming, dare I say it, Scotland’s second Prime Minister and first female Prime Minister).
To me, all of this shows that there is nothing preventing women from rising to the top in Scottish politics. It may not be leading to a perfect 50/50 split, but the only way of ever guaranteeing that is to have every seat represented by both a male and a female. But the problem there is that you’re then effectively saying that only women can stick up for women’s issues, and only men can stick up for men’s issues.
I think there are things that could be done without having to resort to “positive” discrimination:
– Rather than all women shortlists, why not just have 50/50 shortlists (as Gary Crocker suggested above), thereby securing what we’re supposed to be aiming for – equal opportunities. This nullifies the “what if the best candidate is a man?” argument (which could also be nullified by having all-women-but-one shortlists, where the best male is allowed on the shortlist, just to prove that the victorious female truly did win on merit);
– Proportional representation is a great way of increasing the chances of women getting elected, if parties simply ensure their regional list candidates are ordered male/female/male/female or female/male/female/male;
– Ensuring the media gives equal representation and prominence to both sexes in political coverage allows aspiring female politicians to see they can rise to the top, and also makes sure men see women performing just as capably as male politicians.
We can’t properly address the problem of a lack of women in politics until we truly understand why the problem exists. Are they put off by what they see on the TV, meaning we need to get commit to getting rid of “Punch and Judy” politics? Do they not feel like they can make a difference, that their voice will be ignored? Do they see a political career as being too time consuming and thus presenting a barrier to starting a family? Until we really know what it is that stops them, we can’t fix it.
#60 by Doug Daniel on March 16, 2012 - 11:43 am
Oh, and I was really chuffed that Leanne has become leader of Plaid. From what I’ve seen of her on Question Time in the past, she’s excellent, and I loved her victory speech as well.
Pingback: Does your mum still make those fine chips? – Scottish Roundup