More bad news for talented white men in politics
Dear John Bercow,
Now that your wife is making headlines for all the wrong reasons, it is clear that you’re feeling a bit left out so you’ve decided to start making headlines for the wrong reasons too. Your latest wheeze is to force political parties to declare how many women, ethnic minority and disabled applicants they reject as candidates in an attempt to change Parliament’s image as a club of middle class, middle-aged men. Oh dear.
In future, parties will publish online every six months details of the candidates they are selecting for the next general election. An amendment to the Equality Bill, now going through Parliament, will ensure there is “public accountability” to the secretive process of candidate selection. The all-party Speaker’s Conference said parties were the “gatekeepers” to the Commons and had to be the agents of change but that their record on promoting diversity was “uneven”. Its inquiry found that while more women and black and Asian people were trying to become candidates, “the fact remains that at present the House of Commons continues to be largely white, male, middle-aged and middle class.” It added: “People from under-represented groups who are putting themselves forward for selection are still proportionately less likely to be selected, or to be selected for a seat the party thinks it can win, than their counterparts.” The inquiry found that parties only monitored their progress internally, so there was no public accountability. It said: “Unless the performance of different parties can be compared with each other (and with the performance of parties throughout the world) there is likely to be insufficient pressure for the political parties to pursue the cultural change which is needed from them before we can have a House of Commons fit for the 21st century. …To monitor progress properly requires data from all stages of the selection process, from the initial call for applicants to the final outcome.”
Great, just great. Using discrimination to end discrimination is always one of those topics that leaves me dumbfounded. How is it that the Speaker of the House of Commons could demonstrate such spectacular naivety when it comes to candidate selection? Firstly, it will take years for the greater number of women, black and Asian applicants to become candidates because it is normal practice for people to keep applying for seats over the course of one, if not two or three, general election campaigns before they are adopted as a candidate. This is largely because it is very hard for a candidate to demonstrate their campaigning experience unless they have been involved in politics for several years, hence why new waves of applicants will often have little impact. This is not evidence of discrimination, it’s called common sense on the part of political associations who need their candidates to be top-class campaigners. Introducing new legislation to emotionally blackmail parties into taking on inexperienced and poorly qualified candidates, regardless of their gender or the colour of their skin, will almost by definition result in lower quality candidates being selected.
Secondly, why should political parties be bashed over the head with “public accountability”? They are not funded by the taxpayer, so why should they be told what to do? If the parties refuse to change their image and intake, it is their loss. Saying that without interference in their operations there will be “insufficient pressure” on them to change is just ridiculous. Have you seen how much David Cameron is irritating the Conservative grassroots by interfering in their operations and forcing unqualified or unsuitable candidates on them? Do you actually think this is helping anyone or giving politics a good name by foisting female or Asian candidates onto local associations when they are better qualified and more talented candidates available? If MPs start appearing from minority groups simply by virtue of their skin colour, background, disability or gender rather than being selected on raw talent (which, as I said above, takes years to acquire in most cases) then Parliament and democracy will be the biggest losers.
As I have said countless times on this blog, ending discrimination and promoting opportunities for minority groups takes time. Of course Parliament is full of white middle-class men – the system has been designed badly and needs to change, but the results of any changes will and should take years to manifest themselves on the hallowed green benches. Forcing parties to take on minority candidates is blatant discrimination against white males and if your standards and intellect are so low that you think ’doing a Harman’ by using blatant discrimination to end discrimination is acceptable then you simply do not deserve to hold the position of Speaker.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
“Of course Parliament is full of white middle-class men..”
So’s England.
At least, so far…
You start out with one statement, that political parties are being expected to monitor their applications and appointments, and then make a giant leap to turn this into being forced to appoint unsuitable candidates. Frankly, that is bloody ludicrous.
Being an MP is a public appointment. They are paid out of the public purse. How people are appointed to public positions is in the public interest, and the monitoring of such has been in law for nearly 10 years.
An industrial tribunal, and subsequently the House of Lords, ruled that the Labour Party procedures in not selecting Raghib Hassan, many years ago, constituted unfair dismissal because the selection procedures were unfair and discriminatory.
There is no reason why the Conservative Party should be any different, and, incidentally, they do receive public money.
“ending discrimination and promoting opportunities for minority groups takes time”
Because they are oxymoronic? Ending discrimination is laudable but promoting the interests of one group, minority or otherwise, flies in the face of that being, as it is, about politically dictated outcomes not egalitarian opportunity!
I don’t quite understand Bercow. In what way is this part of his remit. When did hear opinion from Speaker Weatherill? Just because the fool (now enobled, could you believe) Speaker Martin decided to open his mouth on any range of subjects, that doesn’t make it part of the role.
He has no place in such debates, he should concentrate purely on the procedural process of the house itself. There should be enough red meat there to keep him occupied for the next six months, after which I hope to see his parliamentary seat occupied by Nigel Farage.
And we thought that after Martin, there was no worse candidate.
Julia, a very valid point that is obviously not deemed relevant by Bercow.
Bob, I’m sorry – are you actually suggesting that all this data is going to be published and simply left to collect dust? Are you as naive as Bercow?! This information will be used to threaten the political parties to take on more candidates from minority backgrounds and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. And yes, MPs are public appointments, but the candidate selection process should never be compelled to be public – that is the choice for the parties themselves. The voters can make their minds up once the parties have put their chosen candidates forward.
Shaun, I take your point but I think opportunities can be increased for groups who face particular barriers that prevent them from competing on a level playing field. Where I disagree with Bercow is that I think the objective should be a level playing field whereas he has no such intention.
Tony, I think Farage will lose but that doesn’t mean he can’t make Bercow’s life uncomfortable.
I dunno LFAT, the one time I met Bercow at our old University (about 15 years ago, now!), he seemed to be ‘fair minded’ in the sense of having a well developed sense of fairness. He could’ve been having me on, of course, but we had a pint together and I’m a fairly good judge of character. I don’t claim to *know* the man, however.
What he *might* be doing is taking a flier on behalf of his wife to curry favour in a possible Harman-lead Labour party after the election. He is quite Machiavellian when he wants to be and we all do things for love that, deep down, we’re not proud of!
I accept that the idea of an MP, of all things, actually being in love with his own wife may seem somewhat anachronistic, though!
@Tony E – “And we thought that after Martin, there was no worse candidate. “
Actually, plenty of people pointed out that Bercow would be no better…
Shaun, as you may have noticed, both Bercow and his wife have changed their political allegiances quite a few times in the past 15 years…
Julia, damn right they did. He was elected by Labour to p*** off the Conservatives, not because he was the best man for the job.
‘there is likely to be insufficient pressure for the political parties to pursue the cultural change which is needed from them before we can have a House of Commons fit for the 21st century’
We could maybe focus on a cultural change in the House of Commons that involves having a culture of integrity, honesty, accountability and public service.
Sorry, i’ll go back to sleep and my dreamland.
Ironically, that would probably attract more people into Parliament than any stupid positive discrimination ever could.
I don’t think my sarcasm quite transferred to the page…
No. No, it is not. It is absolutely not a “public appointment”. It is exactly the reverse.
An MP is elected. Elected by the voters of the constituency concerned. The MP should be the choice of those voters, not someone appointed by central committees stuffed with the great and the good.
The appropriate response is to devolve candidate selection down to the local associations and the local voters – open caucuses are an excellent way forward. Then, once the local voters have made their choice, the Establishment can just shut up. If you want more diverse candidates, make it easier to stand in a caucus or in the election proper. Don’t just stitch up the selection process so that we get to choose from the candidates you are willing to allow us.
I have to say, your comment that being an MP is a “public appointment” disgusts me and highlights what is wrong with our current political establishment.
Patently, you forget that our friend Bob is from a party that doesn’t quite understand the concept of letting the voters make decisions and have any real input.
LFAT, the list of things they “don’t quite understand” is a very long one indeed…
Actually, plenty of people pointed out that Bercow would be no better…
I don’t think my sarcasm quite transferred to the page…
@Tony E – Heh! No, we need a new HTML tag for that…
@JuliaM – < glib > </ glib > ?
Perhaps mr Berkow could lead by example and stand down as speaker in favour of Dianne Abbott, folowed by standing down as MP.
One can dream…