More on Quotas
By Emma.
I think this idea is absolutely the right thing to do, and this is absolutely the right time to do it.
The idea that this will stop “the best candidate” is a straw man. For any job, there is no perfect candidate, but a set of criteria, and a number of candidates who match this criteria to a greater or lesser extent. All this does is add an extra level of criteria in the essential catagory. In politics we all know that there have always been other factors than simply “merit” in appointing people, and that this is true in all parties. Factionalism is far more damaging to politics than gender balancing but is allowed to carry on regardless as it’s an informal rather than a positive and formal rebalancing.
I hope this wouldn’t be a permanent measure, but one designed to permanently change the culture until it makes itself unnecessary – like All Women Shortlists.
Politically, I don’t think this can hurts us. Anyone unlikely to vote for a party based on this issue alone, is always going to be unlikely to vote Labour. On the other hand, this single measure gives us back a sense of radicalism and transformative politics that has been missing from the Labour Party for a while. It could have the power to further inspire the base, particularly the women, and to bring in a generation of feminists who see Labour taking real and direct action to improve our offer to women in politics.
Friday, June 4th 2010 at 14:55
Spain’s got a 50% female cabinet without quotas – though you don’t need to be in parliament to be a minister there, which helps. I instinctively shy away from the idea of a 50% quota – if a woman resigns a woman must replace her, and a man a man. Politics isn’t Korfball, and I think you need a bit more flexibility than a situation where you end up saying ‘one of the men’s seats in the shadow cabinet has just become available’.
That said, I probably do favour a quota of some kind – given that arbitrary percentages are all the rage these days, I’ll say 35% – leaving you with free choice for 30%. This blunts the ‘merit’ counterargument, but would probably be impossible to sell, because people only operate in wholes and halves, and someone would no doubt extrapolate nonsense notions of how it means that women are only thought of as 35% as good as men, or some other bollocks.
Similarly, I worry about AWS – particularly in these days of voting reform debates, if we’re going to argue for a retained constituency link then we can’t afford to exclude candidates with a particular attachment to a given constituency. I don’t think we can afford another Blaenau Gwent. But overall I think they’ve been a good thing.
Friday, June 4th 2010 at 17:29
Actually, with a quota of at least 50%, it’s arguable that if a man left, a woman could replace him and we would have over 50% representation of women in the shadow cabinet.
I would like to see a 50% quota as I think anything less dulls both the impact and the message. However, if this were a negotiation, I think starting at 50% and ending at 35% 35% 30% wouldn’t be the worst outcome. However, I would want a close monitoring of how that free 30% was then filled. If it was perma-male, then there would be a problem.
Of course this system and others cause difficulties and have teething problems. That doesn’t make them worthwhile. While you don’t think we can afford another Blaenau Gwent, I don’t think we can afford another male-dominated shadow cabinet. Both have their plusses and minuses and we have to choose which one we prioritise. A very wise politician (Friday Pop Quiz – who was it!) once said “every once in a while, there’s a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts.” finding your way through the grey areas is what keeps politics so interesting, while also making it so frustrating!