Women should make up at least 45% of MPs by law says Britain's equality committee

[sethman75]

So somebody gets a job not because they are talented but because they have a vag. Great way for government to lose credibility and efficiency.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

We have something like that in the U.S

Example (just wild numbers)
Male and Female students apply for Nursing School
Male has 1400 GPA
Female has 1600 GPA
Male gets +100 for having served in the military and +150 for being a male applying to a female dominated line of work.
Now the male has higher chance to get accepted into the school of his choice because he did some military service (well deserved imo) but also because he's a male. Even though the female (in this made up scenario) worked harder and might deserve it more she will get picked second, in 2016 this rule doesn't work for the gender thing when applying for schools, Norway, and many are very happy about that. The Military service one is good though I think, makes up for lost time you could have spent getting a higher GPA.

[purebalance]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7517121.html

It sure seems like politics is changing. No longer is it an old boy's club in many countries.

The question at hand may be just what % should the threshold be set at.

No this is utter sexism to both men and women. 100% women if they were all better for the job than men or 100% all women if they were better for the job than the women would be less sexist than this.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

How would this actually work? Does it just refer to candidates? The parties can't control who gets elected. What if the public just happen to vote for 70% men at the next election?
For those who don't know UK politics, we elect MPs for local areas, and they (in theory) try to represent the issues that matter to that area.
Each constituency votes for specific candidates. If they vote for the conservative candidate because he's conservative in one area, the labour candidate in another because he's a labour candidate, and in each constituency there was a female candidate running for the other party, would both parties be sanctioned under this system? Do this committee know how our political system works?
Perhaps they'll move candidates around to "safe seats" so they know a certain proportion of candidates will be female, but then they are likely to have less investment in that area, if that's not where they're from.
It sounds like a system that could have a negative impact on voters. The best they can really do is push for more women to get into politics, which I have no objection to. I'd just rather that representatives of an area cared about said area.

[Nihilanth]

That is textbook sexism. Giving women a guarantee position on the Parliament because they have a vagina is discriminatory and sexist towards men.

Gender should be irrelevant. Merits should be all that matters.

[klogaroth]

If you want a female MP - vote for one. If you don't have the option of a female MP - join a party and work to give yourself the option, or be the option.

Just don't come moaning because your option for a female MP holds vastly different political views to you. You wanted to pick based on gender - get on with it. Compelling parties to put forward two candidates means small parties just can't run, god knows what independents would do. Requesting parties put forward two candidates splits the vote so they just won't do it.

[Dhrizzle]

We should do a comprehensive poll of the english population taking into account
1. Gender
2. Sexual orientation
3. Age
4. Race
5. Immigrant or not
6. Previous workplace
7. Suffers from some disability (and what kind)
etc.

After that is all done we can ensure that all fat amputees between the ages 20-30 who immigrated from Iraq and is a pansexual demiqueer and previously worked as a phone operator are properly represented by a similar MP. Or we could just go with the people most qualified for the job. Whichever makes more sense i guess.

Considering the job of MPs is to represent the public you could argue that a diverse and representative group would be the one best qualified.

[Cirayne24]

Example (just wild numbers)
Male and Female students apply for Nursing School
Male has 1400 GPA
Female has 1600 GPA
Male gets +100 for having served in the military and +150 for being a male applying to a female dominated line of work.
Now the male has higher chance to get accepted into the school of his choice because he did some military service (well deserved imo) but also because he's a male. Even though the female (in this made up scenario) worked harder and might deserve it more she will get picked second, in 2016 this rule doesn't work for the gender thing when applying for schools, Norway, and many are very happy about that. The Military service one is good though I think, makes up for lost time you could have spent getting a higher GPA.

Sounds like traditional affirmative action, but with genders instead of the traditional race we think of.

[Dhrizzle]

How would this actually work? Does it just refer to candidates? The parties can't control who gets elected. What if the public just happen to vote for 70% men at the next election?
For those who don't know UK politics, we elect MPs for local areas, and they (in theory) try to represent the issues that matter to that area.
Each constituency votes for specific candidates. If they vote for the conservative candidate because he's conservative in one area, the labour candidate in another because he's a labour candidate, and in each constituency there was a female candidate running for the other party, would both parties be sanctioned under this system? Do this committee know how our political system works?
Perhaps they'll move candidates around to "safe seats" so they know a certain proportion of candidates will be female, but then they are likely to have less investment in that area, if that's not where they're from.
It sounds like a system that could have a negative impact on voters. The best they can really do is push for more women to get into politics, which I have no objection to. I'd just rather that representatives of an area cared about said area.

The proposals are targeted at the parties to get them to field more female candidates for parliament, as the committee is made up of MPs I'm fairly certain they have some idea of how becoming an MP works.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

The proposals are targeted at the parties to get them to field more female candidates for parliament, as the committee is made up of MPs I'm fairly certain they have some idea of how becoming an MP works.

Right, but as I said what happens when the vote inevitably goes along party lines and the female candidates aren't elected? Are there really that many safe seats?

On a side note is it worth considering adding an extra MP per constituency, one male and one female? If it's female voices they want that seems to me to be a better solution on the face of it, though there are almost certainly things I've not considered.

[Dhrizzle]

Right, but as I said what happens when the vote inevitably goes along party lines and the female candidates aren't elected? Are there really that many safe seats?

As long as the parties aren't deliberately placing female candidates in constituencies they're guaranteed to lose then fielding ~50% female candidates should give ~50% female MPs.

On a side note is it worth considering adding an extra MP per constituency, one male and one female? If it's female voices they want that seems to me to be a better solution on the face of it, though there are almost certainly things I've not considered.

If we're talking about overhauling the parliamentary system I'd get rid of FPTP altogether and put in something like PR.

[Aeula]

MP's should be selected based on competence at their job, not what's between their legs.

[Pony Soldier]

What's really annoying is that people these days are just focusing on how many men, women, black, or white people they have at their jobs and are like "we have too many men here we need to fire some of them and hire more women because DIVERSITY!" or "there's too many white people here. If people see how many whites we have they'd call us racist so fire some of them and hire some blacks". It's like they want to hire people solely based on their gender/skin color and not their talent.

Why does it matter what gender or race you are? Just hire the most competent person and let it be at that. Fucking hell this world has become such a shit fest.

[Independent voter]

You'd think the Queen would count for like 20 female MPs.

[Dhrizzle]

MP's should be selected based on competence at their job, not what's between their legs.

That's not how politics works, at least not in the UK. MPs are selected usually based on what party they represent, and they get to represent their party based on a number of factors including who they are, who they know, what school they went to, what clubs they are part of and, occasionally, what they have achieved.

If we were going to select MPs based on their competency at MPing we'd have to get rid of democracy which will probably be quite unpopular.]

BTW even with a target of 45% female MPs it would be very unlikely that selections are made purely by genitalia, there would still be the usual processes needed to work your way up the party ranks, otherwise they'd select MPs by drawing NI numbers out of a hat.

[klogaroth]

Just throwing it out there that a quota on candidates put forward isn't necessarily going to lead to an increase in MPs as well. If you have to fill quotas, where do you fill quotas? What you do is you get your best candidates, regardless of gender, in seats where they might win. Then you fill quotas in seats where you're a complete outsider. Just like you don't have your potential cabinet ministers run in a safe constituency for your opponents right now.

[Dhrizzle]

What's really annoying is that people these days are just focusing on how many men, women, black, or white people they have at their jobs and are like "we have too many men here we need to fire some of them and hire more women because DIVERSITY!" or "there's too many white people here. If people see how many whites we have they'd call us racist so fire some of them and hire some blacks". It's like they want to hire people solely based on their gender/skin color and not their talent.

Why does it matter what gender or race you are? Just hire the most competent person and let it be at that. Fucking hell this world has become such a shit fest.

I don't think there are any calls to "fire" MPs, which is probably illegal under our election rules anyway. It's desirable for a body representing the UK public to be representable of the UK public because people of different races, genders, sexualities, abilities and economic backgrounds can have different experiences based on these factors and can use these experiences help the government do a better job.

[Segus1992]

Considering what women in politics get on a regular basis from the adoring public the fate of being in politics could be worse than stepping into mine fields.. kinda :P

Yes, getting your feelings hurt is worse than, you know, dying.

I love how the response to a potential patriarchy as a result of democracy is to instate a matriarchy.

[Kalis]

Just like you don't have your potential cabinet ministers run in a safe constituency for your opponents right now.

Labour are currently trying to make everywhere a safe seat for their opponents.

[Xarkan]

Yes, getting your feelings hurt is worse than, you know, dying.

While i deliberatly exagerated (cause debating mine fields was absurd in the context to begin with) you are severily underestimating what politicians in general and female politicians in particular get from the adoring public.. it is not complaints about their hair looking bad [edit] well not only complaints about their hair looking bad

Also i am not refering to those in lead positions (because at the top it is pretty much equal for all.. the hate that is)