Ladymuck

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She is removing the rights of the electorate to > select whoever they choose. I beg to differ. She is only, by her law, permitting positive action if it is a proportionate means of addressing under-representation of certain groups in Parliament. I.e. where representation of that group is disproportionately low. The electorate will still be able to select whoever they wish from, what is hoped, will be a more diverse political ring. A purported "choice" of mainly WUPOMs is effectively no choice at all. That said, I think I can (ever so slightly) see where you are coming from. Presumably you view positive action in this way as "manipulating" the democratic process and it is perhaps this which you find so undemocratic? Personally, I would refer to it as "tweaking". Moreover, if such manipulation/tweaking alleviates political exclusion, leads to a fairer democracy, and is conducive to the public good, then I don't have a problem with "it". >It is the end of > democracy. This, to me, smacks of melodrama and scare/doom mongering. Her reforms are aimed at fairer representation. Fairer representation = fairer elections = fairer democracy = fairer society. They will not prevent a fairly elected Government through fairly elected representatives. Parliament should be a microcosm of the general populace. If we continue to have a parliament comprised of mainly WOPUMs as the make-up of society continues to change, then people will become more and more disengaged with politics until, eventually, few will bother to vote. As it stands, the UK has a relatively low voter turnout compared with other countries. One reason for this is that people are less likely to vote if they feel that they, and what matters to them, are not reflected in those selected to "represent" them. Studies/surveys consistently demonstrate that where people choose not to vote that it is often because they view politicians as all being the same or because of an inability to relate to them because, e.g. (as is the case with the black community) politicians are perceived to be ignorant of what concerns them. If we don't have democratic engagement within our political system how on earth can we then assert that it is truly democratic? For me, it is this lack of both democratic and political engagement which undermines and is the real threat to our democracy not, as you appear to be saying, Harman's law. > You must instead educate the electorate in the benefits of > diversity and ensure the opportunity to learn the > necessary skills are open to all. Ha! If life were that simple, this thread wouldn't be in existence and I would instead be playing away to my heart's content in the Lounge instead of...erm...playing away to my heart's content...erm...in this room...or something... But you are right in saying that education and equality of opportunity are key - I'll grant you that.:)) (Fisk entirely deliberate and executed without a hint of remorse).

We is deffo on topic... Yooz from Downtown or the Black Hills by any chance?

brum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm slightly amused by the term 'tyrannical' being > used... I wonder if Harriet Harman will feel the same?

PS: I cannot help but wonder at what Harriet Harman might think of the implication that her law might be tantamount to tyranny! :))

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Understood about the fisking, but you're quite > wrong on everything else... You are indeed audacious to taunt me so Huguenot. Singapore is not that far away (certainly, I believe it to be closer than Vietnam)! Audacity aside, I can (you heard correctly) see where you are coming from. In particular, I would agree that a proportional system of voting would, in all probability, yield more women and ethnic minorities in Parliament. However, given the huge imbalance evident in our House of Commons at present, I doubt such a change to our system of voting would suffice to redress that imbalance. More is needed. Harriet Harman's law, which allows for positive action in favour of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities - whilst not ideal - recognises this. Society has changed (and continues to do so) - one just has to look around to see this. At present more than 50% of the country's citizens are women and (roughly) around 10% of citizens are from minority ethnic groups for example. But this is not reflected in the House of Commons. A significant increase in the proportion of - e.g. - women and members of ethnic minority communities in Parliament is therefore required in order to make Parliament more representative of its people. Why should the House of Commons be different? A Parliament comprised of virtually white, middle/upper-class, public school, Oxbridge-educated men has had its day in modern Britain. To continue the tradition is neither desirable nor acceptable if we are to strive for a fairer society.

Sorry:-$

*gives Willy-Woof the big bone and subsequently sets him onto karter* Go on Woofy...KILL...

Awwwww...you care...are you by any chance Sweet Angeline or Sweet Jane? No? Then perhaps you are one of those International Heroes? But no, I don't need a doctor. I think I need to head on down the Road to Birmingham for some Saturday Gigs. But you are sweet - Momma's Little Jewel. Hasta la proxima vez, Midnight Lady.

*creases up...* Rest in Peace karter, this Midnight Lady is just the Original Mixed-up-Kid. Well, that and the fact that she's one of dem Whiskey Women...or maybe it's the drugs maaaan... Go check with the man...Honaloochie Boogie... When My Mind's Gone...

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you ever tried the one without the "h" in > it.....? > > ( honest, I can't tell the "diffo"...) > > * hits head * No, can't say that I have. Have just tried some without the "s" though, but as with your experience of the substance without the "h", I can't tell the difference either. *walks into wall knocking herself unconscious*

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MPs do represent their constituents, as a > consequence you have to go with whoever they have > elected. If race or gender was a priority, then > this would reflect itself in the results. It > doesn't, so it's not a priority for voters. Oh gawd! When I said that "party members are not representative of their constituents", I was meaning that they don't typify their constituents (e.g. in appearance or social/ethnic background etc.). So apologies for not being clear there. As for race/gender, no-one is suggesting that these factors should be a priority. Clearly, candidates should be selected on the basis of merit/competence etc. (though I do believe that many women voters actually voted for Mrs. T on the basis of gender - and look what happened there). > The only way you could impose a demand for a more > mixed candidate profile would be by employing > proportional representation and imposing this as a > regulation on parties. No - it isn't the only way (sorry). Positive action, for example, has the potential to reverse undesirable results by making legal something which would otherwise be deemed illegal (e.g. positive discrimination). Indeed, the Equality Act specifically provides for positive action in the areas of gender, race and disability in an attempt to redress the current imbalance in respect of Parliamentary candidates. (Apologies for fisk - twas easier that way)

It's all Darkness Darkness. Personally I blame All The Young Dudes in the series. So Sad though - and I Can Feel that this must be quite a Nightmare for a Lounge Lizard such as yourself Honaloochie Boogie. Personally I think the producers are taking you for some sort of Sucker. So you just go right ahead and tell them about it. In fact, you should Shout It All Out. Laters. Midnight Lady.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Representative government means more > than just gender issues. For instance, I haven't > seen to 2010 figures, but the previous parliament > had a grand total of 5 black MPs. Five! What has > Harman's law done in that area? Sweet FA. I agree that increasing the diversity of Parliament shouldn't just be about gender. But it is unfair of you to suggest that HH has done "sweet FA" about the lack of ethnic minority candidates. Her Act does actually include specific provisions which effectively make it legal for political parties to reserve a specific number of places on candidate shortlists for applicants on grounds of race ? in an attempt to make Parliament more representative of the country's population.

Yeaahhhh...big fat hug to MrBen. *raises glass of whisky (without the "e") to MrBen* *no doggie...that's not for you...it's for MrBen...now SIT!*

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Long live the dog...... > > *Groans* You're a good sport MrBen... (but seriously, what were you thinking?):))

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! *here doggie doggie...*

I ADORE the Forum's pet dog. Live and let live I say. Although (Willy)-Woof can be quite close to the mark (pun intended) at times, as far as I am aware, he hasn't breached any of the Forum's rules. And, on those occasions where he does get a little out of hand, a muzzle (in conjunction with a syringe containing a minute dose of phenobarbital) usually does the trick. *grabs placard and chants outside the EDF's offices* LONG LIVE THE DOG! LONG LIVE THE DOG!

...ahem... *blushes profusely*

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Errr ... anyone brave enough to pick Ladymuck up > on one or two points above? Don't you dare - I did state at the outset that this topic was too complex for my brain.;-) It's an excellent thread though DC.

All I know, is that it is my intuition (i.e. a type of moral guidance) and not my brain (i.e. logic) which determines what is right or wrong. A story: A few years ago, in Vietnam, I witnessed a man persistently beat his little girl (about 5/6 years old). I did not use rational thought to determine whether this man was entitled to act as he did. Was he perhaps instilling some discipline into his child, for example? Or, was his conduct deemed acceptable behaviour in his country? Or had this small girl perhaps herself committed some worse atrocity to "deserve" such treatment even? The man was on his own property (a boat) and the mother simply watched as her child was being systematically beaten, kicked, and punched etc. So there I was in this man's country. He was on his own property beating his own child. As far as I understand the position, it is common practice within Vietnamese culture to beat children in pursuance of educating them. Many, though certainly not all, believe, that by so beating, their children will become good people. Here, in the UK we cannot beat children in this way. My brain (i.e. logic) signalled to me that, under the doctrine of cultural relativism, this man's actions (which stemmed from a moral system which said that it was OK - nay, his duty - to beat his child), had to be respected by me as his belief was ? albeit very different from mine - equally valid and certainly no less right. So, what did I do? Well, all rational thought and logic was immediately jettisoned. Instinct compelled me to leap onto this man's boat. I then pulled the child away from him and proceeded to give him the "best" beating my hobbit-like frame could. I did this for a few minutes, not to mention, swear, hiss and spit at him while a group of British tourists and his wife merely looked on. Now, before any of you start sending me "hate PMs", may I just say that I am not proud of my behaviour ? though having said that, somewhat perversely, I would probably do the same again if faced with a similar situation. So the question here is: is the system in which I live better than that Vietnamese man's? If yes, then morality comes into play which means that I was correct to use my moral guidance and step in. If no, because according to the theory on cultural relativism morality is subjective depending on a person's culture and neither his nor my system are better than one another's, then my actions were grossly inappropriate and I am nothing more than an arrogant Westerner telling the Vietnamese "how to get their house in order" (to quote the eloquent DC). I followed my morals and chose to intervene but, by doing so, dispensed with the rules of cultural relativism that no one moral system is best. HOW can this concept of cultural relativism prevail over humankind's integral sense of morality? I honestly don't think that it can! And my experience is evidence of this. I just could not sit back and do nothing - any more than some of you could stand by and watch the forcible circumcision of females. The sight of that little girl being beaten was totally shocking and abhorrent to me. In essence, my moral guidance told me ? f-uck this logic, it is WRONG. So, if cultural relativism is to be accepted as a concept, then (it is my humble opinion) that logic prevails and morality must, as a consequence, be abandoned. If morality is to prevail, then it is cultural relativism (and therefore logic) which has to be thrown out of the window along with many of the other "...isms". Keep editing because pea brain has gone into semi-meltdown mode and I can't even understand my own post!:-S

She was - hee hee. But how utterly presumptuous of her to suggest that women/ethnic minorities might not want to run the country. *raises fist*

Damn...cross-post...the "Telling me" comment is in response to Sean's latest post.

Telling me!!!!!

Very brave and complex subject DC - probably a bit too complex for me to be honest. But one little question please. You refer to "backward" societies/culture. Could you clarify exactly what you mean by "backward" here?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Speaking of QT, did anyone else feel the urge to > punch the guy from the New Statesman? Very well > informed, but *really* grating way of saying > things. Never thought I'd cheer for Heseltine. Actually I thought Mehdi Hasan of the New Statesman put over his points very well. His knowledge on the situation in Europe in particular is impressive. He is clearly very passionate and - yes - well informed. Weirdly though, something about him reminded me of the Miliband brothers:-S. If anyone grated on me it was Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips. I found some of the things she said dismissive and, frankly, silly. Far from adding to the debate, she simply failed to respond to the issues being raised in the programme. My favourite was Labour peer Lord Falconer. He certainly struck a chord with me when he pointed out that you would have expected that, with a coalition government in particular, there would also have been a coalition of more people of different gender and colour. Made me laugh when he pointed to the fact that the head of the coalition (i.e. DC, NC, GO, VC) all look as though they come from a very similar narrow social background.