@kle4 AWS is nowhere near ideal, but Parliament needs more female voices, and a complex set of circumstances means it will never be so, without some form of swaying the odds.
Just because a situation is bad doesn't mean a bad solution should be utilized.
I am also unclear at what point the gender balance in politics will be close enough to acceptable that mandating specific genders in specific seats is unnecessary because the culture has changed enough that there is an open playing field. 30%? 40%? If at 40% female MPs too many men are still being chosen as candidates when there is an open process, shouldn't we just make 50% gender balance a legal requirement, as apparently the political culture and wider culture could still be just too damn sexist to do the right thing and pick a woman already.
Obviously I am highlighting an exaggerated point, but I genuinely have problems in seeing at what point parties and the public can be trusted to elect a gender balanced political culture without being forced to, and if it is one of those things you have to enforce because people just seem to gravitate to an inequal norm which becomes corrosive and unhelpful, then we should just make it a demand for all. I'd probably be more ok with that than the current approach to occasionally, where it won't hurt parties preferred male candidates, imposing it on the unwilling at a whim. Blanket imposition or none I guess. I wouldn't like the former, but if the end of a balanced parliament and one hopes a more nuanced and reflective political culture is worth the personal unfairness in individual cases, then it's worth doing it properly and not half arsing it.
I'd certainly like to think society is moving in a more palatable direction and we don't need to be unfair on the individual for some equality goal, but of course history is not some march of progress to some greater goal, and many positive changes have had to be forced. It's just a question of whether this is one that needs to be so forced. If it is, then force it properly.
Putting aside how outdated the concepts of left and right are these days, Given Yougov are asking the opinion of laymen (who likely have no idea of the political landscape) based on the assertions of generally biased journalists repeating party propaganda (and who repeatedly misinterpret the political landscape), I would say that that poll has absolutely no value at all
For those that support AWS, would you also support...
All black shortlist? All muslim shortlist? All ginger shortlist? All disabled shortlist?
All white shortlist? All male shortlist? All straight shortlist?
You think there's a shortage of straight, white men in Parliament? Straight maybe but surely not the other two.
Its all just absolute nonsense.. you don't correct inequality by imposing inequality.
And yet AWS is working for Labour. Go figure.
And yet Labour still stand male candidates against female MPs of other parties.
Are you sure you've understood the point of AWS?
Well, as the above shows, Labour aren't interested in improving the number of female MPs in other parties, so the point of AWS is to keep careerist female politicians in the Labour party.
Putting aside how outdated the concepts of left and right are these days, Given Yougov are asking the opinion of laymen (who likely have no idea of the political landscape) based on the assertions of generally biased journalists repeating party propaganda (and who repeatedly misinterpret the political landscape), I would say that that poll has absolutely no value at all
I don't think it has much value either, but if layman with no idea of the political landscape can have their views discounted, an those who do have an idea of the political landscape like journalists can have their views discounted, are there many left? Those who have an idea of the political landscape must to some degree get information from professionals, those who 'repeat party propaganda'. For instance, I have voted LD on many occasions but I want UKIP to do well in 2015 and think they might get 1-2 seats if they are lucky (lucky given how are system does not favour new parties), but I also get all my views on politics from no doubt biased journalists, so does that make my view on that possibility and my assessment of where parties and leaders fall on a left-right spectrum without value? I'd say it still has minute value.
Totally agree that the left/right split is nonsense though.
@No_Offence_Alan I got Michael Foot! As if I would have anything to do with a right wing capitalist like that! (Damned fine humanitarian and orator though)
Putting aside how outdated the concepts of left and right are these days, Given Yougov are asking the opinion of laymen (who likely have no idea of the political landscape) based on the assertions of generally biased journalists repeating party propaganda (and who repeatedly misinterpret the political landscape), I would say that that poll has absolutely no value at all
I don't think it has much value either, but if layman with no idea of the political landscape can have their views discounted, an those who do have an idea of the political landscape like journalists can have their views discounted, are there many left? Those who have an idea of the political landscape must to some degree get information from professionals, those who 'repeat party propaganda'. For instance, I have voted LD on many occasions but I want UKIP to do well in 2015 and think they might get 1-2 seats if they are lucky (lucky given how are system does not favour new parties), but I also get all my views on politics from no doubt biased journalists, so does that make my view on that possibility and my assessment of where parties and leaders fall on a left-right spectrum without value? I'd say it still has minute value.
Totally agree that the left/right split is nonsense though.
Whilst I perhaps should have been clearer in my post (e.g for the phrase 'political landscape' I should have wrote 'definition of the political landscape ~ i.e. people have little understanding of what left or right of centre are supposed to stand for or in fact that they have been so hideously confused for propaganda purposes that none of the positions have any real meaning anymore) your last sentence seems to verify my main conclusion.
If the concept of left and right is nonsense then to me the poll has no value but you can have some 'minute value' if you want!
Putting aside how outdated the concepts of left and right are these days, Given Yougov are asking the opinion of laymen (who likely have no idea of the political landscape) based on the assertions of generally biased journalists repeating party propaganda (and who repeatedly misinterpret the political landscape), I would say that that poll has absolutely no value at all
I don't think it has much value either, but if layman with no idea of the political landscape can have their views discounted, an those who do have an idea of the political landscape like journalists can have their views discounted, are there many left? Those who have an idea of the political landscape must to some degree get information from professionals, those who 'repeat party propaganda'. For instance, I have voted LD on many occasions but I want UKIP to do well in 2015 and think they might get 1-2 seats if they are lucky (lucky given how are system does not favour new parties), but I also get all my views on politics from no doubt biased journalists, so does that make my view on that possibility and my assessment of where parties and leaders fall on a left-right spectrum without value? I'd say it still has minute value.
Totally agree that the left/right split is nonsense though.
Whilst I perhaps should have been clearer in my post (e.g for the phrase 'political landscape' I should have wrote 'definition of the political landscape ~ i.e. people have little understanding of what left or right of centre are supposed to stand for or in fact that they have been so hideously confused for propaganda purposes that none of the positions have any real meaning anymore) your last sentence seems to verify my main conclusion.
If the concept of left and right is nonsense then to me the poll has no value but you can have some 'minute value' if you want!
;o)
With some apologies, I will confess to being somewhat playful by seemingly seizing upon a minor phrasing in your post. Ultimately, I would, as you surmise, agree that such a poll has little value.
Even more odd was the peerage he got from David Cameron. There's nothing particularly wrong with bringing down a bank in Cameron's Britain though, so long as you aren't abusing drugs and male prostitutes like Reverend Flowers. Such things just aren't done.
Believe Matt Ridley is a Viscount, so nothing to do with Cameron. He's also not a career banker - the Northern Rock link came about because the Ridley's are the Newcastle (?) Potentates & NR was built around their family bank.
NP 'Sunny Jim' was in my view the best Labour leader until Blair, with the possible exception of John Smith, remember as best PM he consistently beat Maggie
MyBurningEars Some Interesting data, but it seems being slap bang in the middle will just lead to the LDs being squeezed to death, they must hope that the Greens and UKIP squeeze the main parties too
Kle4/Man of Kent In the sense that most voters are in the centre and Blair and Clegg are the most centrist leaders of recent times it has value, as does its finding that Farage (just ahead of Howard/IDS) and Miliband are the most rightwing and leftwing leaders on the spectrum
I've done a profile of Thanet South seat for The Spectator a while back. I can assure people Labour like their chances here. But it's a bit of lift imo. An interesting demographic story is the influx of new residents since HS1. Many if the newer residents are younger professionals and Labour. Nobody has tracked it because it's relatively recent.
Comments
I am also unclear at what point the gender balance in politics will be close enough to acceptable that mandating specific genders in specific seats is unnecessary because the culture has changed enough that there is an open playing field. 30%? 40%? If at 40% female MPs too many men are still being chosen as candidates when there is an open process, shouldn't we just make 50% gender balance a legal requirement, as apparently the political culture and wider culture could still be just too damn sexist to do the right thing and pick a woman already.
Obviously I am highlighting an exaggerated point, but I genuinely have problems in seeing at what point parties and the public can be trusted to elect a gender balanced political culture without being forced to, and if it is one of those things you have to enforce because people just seem to gravitate to an inequal norm which becomes corrosive and unhelpful, then we should just make it a demand for all. I'd probably be more ok with that than the current approach to occasionally, where it won't hurt parties preferred male candidates, imposing it on the unwilling at a whim. Blanket imposition or none I guess. I wouldn't like the former, but if the end of a balanced parliament and one hopes a more nuanced and reflective political culture is worth the personal unfairness in individual cases, then it's worth doing it properly and not half arsing it.
I'd certainly like to think society is moving in a more palatable direction and we don't need to be unfair on the individual for some equality goal, but of course history is not some march of progress to some greater goal, and many positive changes have had to be forced. It's just a question of whether this is one that needs to be so forced. If it is, then force it properly.
And I'm Michael Foot. I THINK I'm honoured!
I'm Paddy Thatcher ....
Hhmmm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqM0Ube0oLs
Totally agree that the left/right split is nonsense though.
I got Michael Foot!
As if I would have anything to do with a right wing capitalist like that!
(Damned fine humanitarian and orator though)
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/between-you-and-me
https .://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqIaXLBk5tQ
It would have lived on in history!
No breaststroking round Claire Balding methinks
Have they still got Sharon Davies poolside with the prominent, er, microphone?
If the concept of left and right is nonsense then to me the poll has no value but you can have some 'minute value' if you want!
;o)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maclennan,_Baron_Maclennan_of_Rogart
OKC You really are a true leftie then
No Offence Alan A kindred spirit!
Kle4/Man of Kent In the sense that most voters are in the centre and Blair and Clegg are the most centrist leaders of recent times it has value, as does its finding that Farage (just ahead of Howard/IDS) and Miliband are the most rightwing and leftwing leaders on the spectrum