Inequality in Britain

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So can I take it you are not happy that the Tories

> are back in power?

Do bears crap in the woods?;-)

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>My earlier lottery comment (you did your home work!) was

>ironic, or supposed to be...

>people should realise that the way to improve your own

>status...is education and hard work.

>In terms of equality, what do you feel about the disparity

>between countries? You would like to see more equality

>in this country but what about globally - should we

>transfer more of our wealth to e.g. African countries so

>that they are not so poor, relative to us?

With the greatest of respect, I think it is a little simplistic to assume that the way to self improvement is necessarily through education and hard work, especially given the underlying inequalities which afflict both our education and employment sectors.

Of course the idea of a global economic utopia where an international socio-politico sytem ensured a perfect world free of poverty, inequality, injustice, etc. would be the ideal. Imagine it, everyone happily going about their business in a vast Eden. It's a fantastic notion. However, given the financial quagmire our own (relatively) tiny country is in, the never-ending list of social ills which plague us daily and the fact that our political parties struggle to even reach a (relatively) simple consensus for a coalition government, I think such a vision is going to have to remain a pipedream for some time. However, I do believe that, until such a vision becomes reality (unlikely) that we should in the meantime give as much ?foreign aid? as we can realistically afford to those struggling/developing countries that need it.

Incidentally, I found your earlier comment (24th March) on the Lottery highly amusing ? which is why I had such a vivid recollection of it. Mine was intended to be equally amusing ? albeit flippant!

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Harman's equality bill called more for all-women

> shortlists. Stuffing Parliament with more

> middle-class, Oxbridge-educated lawyers - male or

> female - will hardly improve things.

Actually, the ?all-women shortlists? provisions were first introduced in 2002 by the The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act to exempt the selection of candidates in Parliament from the provisions in the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act by legally permitting political parties to select candidates based on gender in a bid to increase the number of women within our political system. This ?positive action? provision was due to expire in 2015 (unless specifically extended) and HH's Act merely extends the timescale within which "all-women shortlists" may be utilised until 2030 .

Whilst there has been a rise in the number of women in Parliament, this increase is no where near as representative as it should be (currently just under 20%). This is because there is a bias towards electing males. So, if HH's extension results in greater gender diversity within Parliament, then this, in my view, has to be a good thing.

Oh and...ahem...I do not recall reading anything about ?Stuffing Parliament with more middle-class, Oxbridge-educated lawyers? in the Act...clearly I need to go back and re-read.;-)

[Loz]

I'm not arguing that more women in parliament would be a good thing, LM - it plainly would be. But it is hardly the be-all and end-all of equality. 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.

Oh and ?Stuffing Parliament with more middle-class, Oxbridge-educated lawyers? is not in the act. But it is firmly enshrined in the Law of Unintended Consequences. Do you really think that the someone like Harriet Harmans really 'represent' the Asian working class women of, say, Bradford, just because she is female?

[MitchK]

We need more thickos in Parliament. There are too many intelligent Oxbridge lawyers in there who can string sentences together and understand complex issues such as the economy.

Clegg went to Westminster, Cameron to Eton. Good - they clearly got a brilliant education which will help them in government. Cream always rises to the top.

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We need more thickos in Parliament. There are too

> many intelligent Oxbridge lawyers in there who can

> string sentences together and understand complex

> issues such as the economy.

*bursts out laughing*

Anyone in mind?

[Huguenot]

I'm not sure about the idea of forcing the electorate to elect certain genetic types?

I think there should be a concerted effort to ensure that the electorate have their options open.

If the local selection committees are forcing the electorate to only have a choice of middle aged white males then that needs addressing. The problem seems to me that these selection committees are essentially undemocratic? They skew the system?

[Loz]

I'm not sure about the idea of forcing the electorate to elect certain genetic types?

What about the idea of forcing the electorate to elect certain genders?

[Huguenot]

Well someone mentioned races as well earlier, so I was just trying to do a catch-all.

I think the electorate should be able to vote for whoever they feel best represents them.

I don't think you can have people in London wagging their finger at Crewe & Nantwich telling them they've got to vote for a ginger haired person to keep the numbers up.

It's also inappropriate to suggest that ginger haired people can only be adequately represented by ginger haired people.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure about the idea of forcing the

> electorate to elect certain genetic types?

And this is exactly what is happening at present...the electorate are being forced (in the main) to elect white middle-class (often bald and overweight) men!;-)

[Loz]

And this is exactly what is happening at present...the electorate are being forced (in the main) to elect white middle-class (often bald and overweight) men!

Is that because women are crap at being in the majority?

*runs away at a quite astonishing speed*

[tonyw3]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Harman's equality bill called more for all-women

> shortlists. Stuffing Parliament with more

> middle-class, Oxbridge-educated lawyers - male or

> female - will hardly improve things.

>

> I would suggest that more 'non-lawyer' and

> 'non-Oxbridge' lists would lead to more equality

> in Parliament. Possibly even the occasional

> 'working-class only' shortlist wouldn't go astray,

> either.

Loz, I am not in favour of quotas although at times they do have their place. But I agree with you that "Stuffing Parliament with more middle-class, Oxbridge" types - i.e., one could say clones, is not reflective of the country in general.

I do think that we need a Parliament that reflects the country's diversity.

[tonyw3]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>The problem seems to me that these selection

> committees are essentially undemocratic? They skew

> the system?

I agree with with what you are saying Huguenot that the selection committee themselves are not democratically selected. But I suppose the other problem is, we the public, are not sure how many ethnic minority candidates actually put themselves forward in the first place.

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is that because women are crap at being in the

> majority?

>

> *runs away at a quite astonishing speed*

Exactly the response I expected from a white, middle-class, Oxbridge-educated lawyer/hedge-fund-manager - not forgetting, balding, overweight and middle-aged man!

So when are you standing?

*Loz looks in the mirror and sadly agrees with LM's description*

[Loz]

a white, middle-class, Oxbridge-educated lawyer/hedge-fund-manager

Oooh. I wish. Partially the first, definitely the second, but sadly not the rest of it.

balding, overweight and middle-aged man!

As Meatloaf said, "Two out of three ain't bad".

But then he also had a song called 'Bat out of Hell". What'd you do with that mirror, LM? :))

[womanofdulwich]

I don't think you should be able to stand as an MP unless you have had a proper job for at least 3 years. By a proper job I mean not been a professional politician. Preferable not in civil service either.

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But then he also had a song called 'Bat out of

> Hell". What'd you do with that mirror, LM? :))

If It Ain`t Broke, Break It? (Meatloaf)

[Loz]

Heh, heh. You took the words right out of my mouth... :)-D

But there was a serious point to my rather flippant comment. Gender is not a priority for the way most women, or indeed most men, vote. For instance, if your favoured party put forward an identikit white, middle-class lawyer type and, say, the Tories fielded a female candidate, which way would you vote?

And the parties know this. All they want/need is a few women and minorities fend off the media (e.g. May and Warsi in the new cabinet).

[Ladymuck]

Couldn't Have Said It Better (Meatloaf):)-D

It is about equality, diversity, and being representative of our country.

[????]

Well my suggestion is that we do a random representative sample from each constituency and whoever is selected HAS to do it....if we really want to get a more representative House of Commons

[Moos]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But there was a serious point to my rather

> flippant comment. Gender is not a priority for

> the way most women, or indeed most men, vote.

Au contraire, Blackadder. I won't vote for a woman because she's prioritised her career over family I'm trying to link to the comment by niledynodely on 9th April at 2.30am, not the last post, by Huguenot.

This comment took me aback, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a commonly held view among those who prefer their politicians to live and look like themselves. Or at least their husbands :)

[Ladymuck]

Coincidentally, we were joined in our musings on a representative Parliament last night on the BBC's Question Time. It is the last question to be asked: i.e. "Is it new politics when the majority of the cabinet are white, middle-class men educated at public school and Oxbridge?". It could have been us in that studio!

Click here and then scroll forward to 52 mins. (lasts about 4 mins).

[MitchK]

I don't think you can label Cameron, Osborne and Clegg middle-class. Upper-middle I would say. Osborne is practically a member of the aristocracy.

Much better than having the ex-postmen and ship stewards that the Labour party serve up.

[Ladymuck]

Someone's on a wind-up...:))

Anyway, who are these ex-postmen and ship stewards of which you speak?

[????]

Actually, a Labour MP now is most likely to be teacher or Lecturer. Their representation is pretty narrow white collar, middle class public sector or legal/journalist.

Based on the last parliament, I don't know if they've updated this since the election.