Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on March 29, 2023, 12:47:39 PM
-
This appeared on my timeline.
-
This appeared on my timeline.
Interesting.
What it certainly shows is that Labour have diversified their MPs more, and more rapidly than any other party. So interesting that the tories and SNP both have minority ethnic leaders, while Labour hasn't yet.
I suspect you'd get a similar pattern if you looked at women MPs too.
-
I suspect you'd get a similar pattern if you looked at women MPs too.
As I thought.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/870991/women-mps-in-uk-parliament-by-political-party/
-
As I thought.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/870991/women-mps-in-uk-parliament-by-political-party/
Thatcher's achievement looks extraordinary with those numbers.
-
Interesting too that we have taken until 2019 for a major party to come close to being demographically representative, in the broadest sense of sex and ethnicity.
In 2019 104 of Labour's 202 seats were won by women, so 51.4%, compared to census 51.0%
And 41 of 202 MPs from minority ethnic groups represents 20.2% of Labour MPs, just ahead of the census 18.3%.
Yet no female or minority leader at national level (except acting).
-
Thatcher's achievement looks extraordinary with those numbers.
To an extent. Although I think the Tories have been comfortable to go for a leader who is diverse in one respect as long as they tick the usual boxes in others. So although Thatcher was a women, she perhaps exhibited more alpha male tendencies than most of the men around her.
And we also have Sunak - OK to go for a minority ethnic leader ... provided his upbringing is exceptionally privileged (top public school, Oxbridge - well actually not Oxbridge, but Oxford) and stinking rich from working in the City.
-
Interesting too that we have taken until 2019 for a major party to come close to being demographically representative, in the broadest sense of sex and ethnicity.
In 2019 104 of Labour's 202 seats were won by women, so 51.4%, compared to census 51.0%
And 41 of 202 MPs from minority ethnic groups represents 20.2% of Labour MPs, just ahead of the census 18.3%.
Yet no female or minority leader at national level (except acting).
'National' level is surely problematic here?
-
To an extent. Although I think the Tories have been comfortable to go for a leader who is diverse in one respect as long as they tick the usual boxes in others. So although Thatcher was a women, she perhaps exhibited more alpha male tendencies than most of the men around her.
And we also have Sunak - OK to go for a minority ethnic leader ... provided his upbringing is exceptionally privileged (top public school, Oxbridge - well actually not Oxbridge, but Oxford) and stinking rich from working in the City.
I don't see any of that as reducing Thatcher's achievement.
-
'National' level is surely problematic here?
As in UK - go sack me!
-
I don't see any of that as reducing Thatcher's achievement.
I think it means that, certainly in the 1970s/80s, in order to become leader of the tories as a women you need to operate as a typical alpha male would be expected to act. In fact she needed to over-reach herself in those terms as her approach was far more alpha male then her actual male predecessors, who were largely more establishment gentleman types who probably worked through others to keep the oiks in order.
-
As in UK - go sack me!
I know what you meant, I just think It's simplistic in the context of the UK.
-
I think it means that, certainly in the 1970s/80s, in order to become leader of the tories as a women you need to operate as a typical alpha male would be expected to act. In fact she needed to over-reach herself in those terms as her approach was far more alpha male then her actual male predecessors, who were largely more establishment gentleman types who probably worked through others to keep the oiks in order.
Would you say the same about Barbara Castle or Shirley Williams? The alpha male line just seems deeply sexist to me.
-
I know what you meant, I just think It's simplistic in the context of the UK.
Not really for a 'national' party who cover the whole of the UK (well actually the whole of Britain), as opposed to a party such as SNP, Plaid, those guys in Cornwall, who restrict themselves to a relatively small part of the UK.
UK (or GB-wide) Labour have never had a minority ethnic leader - at a level below, major devolved government level, they have two - Sadiq Khan in London and Anas Sarwar in Scotland.
-
Would you say the same about Barbara Castle or Shirley Williams? The alpha male line just seems deeply sexist to me.
Actually yes - or certainly so for Barbara Castle - in the 60-80s to become successful as a woman in politics you needed to operate by the rules of the day and those rules was dictated by men.
-
Actually yes - or certainly so for Barbara Castle - in the 60-80s to become successful as a woman in politics you needed to operate by the rules of the day and those rules was dictated by men.
I think you are being as sexist as the men then.
-
Not really for a 'national' party who cover the whole of the UK (well actually the whole of Britain), as opposed to a party such as SNP, Plaid, those guys in Cornwall, who restrict themselves to a relatively small part of the UK.
UK (or GB-wide) Labour have never had a minority ethnic leader - at a level below, major devolved government level, they have two - Sadiq Khan in London and Anas Sarwar in Scotland.
Britain is an odd term to use here. You seem to think that the UK is the nation but also NI isn't part of it.
As I am sure you know, the concept of a 'nation' is already confused by the concept of the UK. Your facile disingenuosness on that is merely tedious.
Interesting that you missed the women leaders of Labour in Scotland - probably your inherent misogyny
-
I think you are being as sexist as the men then.
I don't agree - I'm just pointing out how society operated back them (and thankfully to a lesser extent still does now) and therefore how those who were not the traditional 'fit' for that society (e.g. due to sex or ethnicity) needed to operate in order to be successful. Don't forget that society so dismissed women back then (when Castle and Thatcher were forging their careers) that women weer routinely paid less than men for the same job and even (astonishingly now) weren't able to get a mortgage without a male guarantor. So not to be dismissed meant playing the by the rule of the male game (as there wasn't a female game) and playing it better than the men.
-
Britain is an odd term to use here. You seem to think that the UK is the nation but also NI isn't part of it.
Because none of the so-called 'national' parties - e.g. Labour, Conservatives, LibDems etc operate in Northern Ireland. So they are, in effect, GB parties rather than UK parties. But as that means they support about 95% of the population, compared to the SNP that supports about 9% of the population, Paid about 4% and the DUP fewer still.
It is a useful (if in reality slightly imprecise) way of describing our political parties.
-
I don't agree - I'm just pointing out how society operated back them (and thankfully to a lesser extent still does now) and therefore how those who were not the traditional 'fit' for that society (e.g. due to sex or ethnicity) needed to operate in order to be successful. Don't forget that society so dismissed women back then (when Castle and Thatcher were forging their careers) that women weer routinely paid less than men for the same job and even (astonishingly now) weren't able to get a mortgage without a male guarantor. So not to be dismissed meant playing the by the rule of the male game (as there wasn't a female game) and playing it better than the men.
Interesting that you chose to ignore Williams? Wasn't she acting manly enough for how you think women needed to behave in politics back then?
-
Because none of the so-called 'national' parties - e.g. Labour, Conservatives, LibDems etc operate in Northern Ireland. So they are, in effect, GB parties rather than UK parties. But as that means they support about 95% of the population, compared to the SNP that supports about 9% of the population, Paid about 4% and the DUP fewer still.
It is a useful (if in reality slightly imprecise) way of describing our political parties.
So it's your own made up idea of 'national'.
-
Interesting that you missed the women leaders of Labour in Scotland - probably your inherent misogyny
I also never mentioned the gay leaders in Scotland - does that mean I'm homophobic, Chip.
But you are of course correct - Labour have not had a female national leader (except acting leaders), not female leaders in any of the major devolved assemblies, e.g. London, Scotland or Wales.
-
I also never mentioned the gay leaders in Scotland - does that mean I'm homophobic, Chip.
But you are of course correct - Labour have not had a female national leader (except acting leaders), not female leaders in any of the major devolved assemblies, e.g. London, Scotland or Wales.
Kezia, he's forgotten you already.
-
Interesting that you chose to ignore Williams? Wasn't she acting manly enough for how you think women needed to behave in politics back then?
Fair point - but I don't think Williams career attained the levels of success of Castle or (of course) Thatcher.
Castle held various ministerial positions over more than a decade - from 64-76. Williams' career was much more limited (effectively just a few years in the 74-79 government). I suspect if she hadn't joined the gang of four she wouldn't be very well known at all. And interestingly, although she was one of the gang of four she was never leader. I've got a lot of time for Williams - indeed have a friend who worked for her for a long while prior to becoming an MP himself, but I don't think she is in the same category as either Castle or Thatcher in terms of mainstream political success.
-
Kezia, he's forgotten you already.
True - mea culpa. Easily forgotten.
In my defence I doubt I could name many of the opposition leaders (or coalition leaders) of any of the parties in Holyrood in recent years - probably the only exception being Ruth Davidson. Sure, in Scotland perhaps these people are high profile, but outside of Scotland, hmm, not so much. But then again I suspect you may also need a bit of googling to find out who the GLA leaders of the Tory, LibDem and Green groups are.
-
True - mea culpa. Easily forgotten.
If you are sexist, I can see how it would be.
-
If you are sexist, I can see how it would be.
Yet Ruth Davidson is about the only opposition leader of recent times (except the current Labour leader) that I would easily be able to namecheck. It isn't about sex, but profile.
-
True - mea culpa. Easily forgotten.
In my defence I doubt I could name many of the opposition leaders (or coalition leaders) of any of the parties in Holyrood in recent years - probably the only exception being Ruth Davidson. Sure, in Scotland perhaps these people are high profile, but outside of Scotland, hmm, not so much. But then again I suspect you may also need a bit of googling to find out who the GLA leaders of the Tory, LibDem and Green groups are.
Oh you've added the second paragraph. And you are right I wouldn't have a clue about most of those but then I wouldn't make a categorical statement about them either.
-
Yet Ruth Davidson is about the only opposition leader of recent times (except the current Labour leader) that I would easily be able to namecheck. It isn't about sex, but profile.
Keep telling yourself that
-
Keep telling yourself that
And without googling could you tell me the Tory, Green and LibDem leaders in the London Assembly? Oh and by the way, they are all female.
-
And without googling could you tell me the Tory, Green and LibDem leaders in the London Assembly? Oh and by the way, they are all female.
See post 26
-
Oh you've added the second paragraph. And you are right I wouldn't have a clue about most of those but then I wouldn't make a categorical statement about them either.
So if I'm misogynistic because I missed the previous female leader of the Labour group in Scotland (albeit did know the previous female Tory leader), what does that make you as you've freely admitted you haven't got a clue about the three women who lead the Tory, Green and LiBDem groups in London. You must be off the scale misogynistic.
-
So if I'm misogynistic because I missed the previous female leader of the Labour group in Scotland (albeit did know the previous female Tory leader), what does that make you as you've freely admitted you haven't got a clue about the three women who lead the Tory, Green and LiBDem groups in London. You must be off the scale misogynistic.
I am happy to admit the things I don't know. You not so much...
-
Keep telling yourself that
Ruth Davidson is about the only Scottish Government politician outside the SNP who has had any significant profile south of the border in recent years. I know about the current Labour guy as there was a bit of press in a similar manner to Yousaf as he's also British Asian. Wouldn't be confident I could name the current tory leader, no idea about the LibDems and I know the Greens have two leaders, one male the other female but couldn't name either.
Perhaps all these politicians are household names in Scotland - they aren't in England - and that has nothing to do with whether they are male or female.
-
Ruth Davidson is about the only Scottish Government politician outside the SNP who has had any significant profile south of the border in recent years. I know about the current Labour guy as there was a bit of press in a similar manner to Yousaf as he's also British Asian. Wouldn't be confident I could name the current tory leader, no idea about the LibDems and I know the Greens have two leaders, one male the other female but couldn't name either.
Perhaps all these politicians are household names in Scotland - they aren't in England - and that has nothing to do with whether they are male or female.
Which is all fine if you didn't make a factually wrong statement.
-
I am happy to admit the things I don't know. You not so much...
Have you read the first three words of reply 23 - do you know what mea culpa means. I got something wrong - I admitted to it.
-
Which is all fine if you didn't make a factually wrong statement.
Which I admitted I got wrong. We all get things wrong once in a while, even you Chip. When this was pointed out I admitted it straight away.
-
Have you read the first three words of reply 23 - do you know what mea culpa means. I got something wrong - I admitted to it.
And since then you have tried to justify your error.
-
Which I admitted I got wrong. We all get things wrong once in a while, even you Chip. When this was pointed out I admitted it straight away.
Just to help you out, the 'Chip' thing is never going to take off. It's not obvious enough, you aren't using it enough, and it's not punchy.
And I'll admit to being perfectly balanced by having chips on both sides.
-
Kezia, he's forgotten you already.
Why only mention Kezia - what about Johann Lamont. So I'm doubly wrong, but you seems to have forgotten her too.
But hey we don't get much coverage of opposition leaders in devolved assemblies in other parts of the country in the South East. What's your excuse.
-
And since then you have tried to justify your error.
Explaining why you got something wrong isn't trying to claim you weren't wrong.
What's your explanation for forgetting poor old Lamont.
-
And I'll admit to being perfectly balanced by having chips on both sides.
Chips are on your shoulder, not on your side, ;) Chip.
-
Why only mention Kezia - what about Johann Lamont. So I'm doubly wrong, but you seems to have forgotten her too.
But hey we don't get much coverage of opposition leaders in devolved assemblies in other parts of the country in the South East. What's your excuse.
Because Kezia has a great name. I don't claim to know anything about those in the London Assembly whereas you...
-
Chips are on your shoulder, not own your side, ;) Chip.
Did that make sense in your head? 'Own'?
-
Because Kezia has a great name. I don't claim to know anything about those in the London Assembly whereas you...
As is Johann - seems rather odd that you'd namecheck one but ignore the other.
-
Did that make sense in your head? 'Own'?
Corrected - rather poor of you needing to resort to pointing out typos. But hey when you've run out of credible arguments that's all you are left with.
-
Just thinking about this issue of profile of leaders of major political parties outside of Westminster (e.g. Scotland, Wales, London) I decided to do a bit of googling to remind myself who has been leader over the past couple of decades and a few things struck me.
First just how many there have been compared to Westminster leaders - no-one seems to last more than a couple of years.
But also just how low profile some have been. So there are some on the list that I know remember were leaders - e.g. Anabel Goldie, and yes I think I did know Douglas Ross was current leader of the Scottish Tories. But there are others I genuinely don't think I've ever heard of, such as:
Jackson Carlaw - Tory - Scotland
David McLetchie - Tory - Scotland
Tavish Scott - LibDem - Scotland
Nicol Stephen - LibDem - Scotland
Paul Windsor Davies - Tory - Wales
Nick Bourne - Tory - Wales
Rod Richards - Tory - Wales
Jane Dodds - LibDem - Wales - current
I mean who knew - outside of Scotland/Wales (not sure many inside Scotland/Wales would have known either).
And I'm only going back about 20 years here.
The Welsh LibDems are interesting as there are quite a few names I know, but are either more famous for other things - e.g. Alex Carlile (the lawyer) and Lembit Opik (not really sure how to summarise his fame).
Or, most embarrassingly, the list includes one person who taught my wife when she was at school and another who is a longstanding friend (largely we've reached the christmas card only stage). In both cases I'd completely forgotten they were Welsh LibDem leaders.
-
This appeared on my timeline.
One notable point is that the SNP have literally only had one minority ethnic MP elected at those general elections in the whole time since 1987. I think there is also Anum Qaisar, recently elected in a by-election.
Correct me please if I am wrong, but I think Yousaf is one of only two minority ethnic MSPs. So that's just 3 across the 112 SNP MPs and MSPs.
Perhaps Yousaf's achievement becoming leader of the SNP as a minority ethnic candidate is as impressive, or maybe more so than Thatcher winning the conservative party leadership as a woman in 1975.
-
Something struck me looking at the graph in the OP.
The tories have 22 minority ethnic MPs out of about 360 in total. Yet a very high proportion of those 22 are really high profile. So for example:
James Cleverly
Kemi Badenoch
Kwasi Kwarteng
Nadhim Zahawi
Priti Patel
Rishi Sunak
Sajid Javid
Suella Braverman
All but one of these MPs have held at least one of the four high offices of state (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary)
And that's before you throw in some lesser known ministers, such as Alok Sharma and Paul Scully.
Now typically, in a large parliamentary party you expect the 'high profile' MPs to be the tip of the ice-berg, so for every MP in a high ministerial office with high profile there are dozens of backbenchers you've never heard of below the surface.
But this isn't the case for the tories - a really high proportion of their minority ethnic MPs are high profile/high office. Now I don't tend to say this often, but hat's off to the tories for achieving this. It is one thing to end up with a single 'token' women or minority ethnic person in a high profile position, but they've managed to pack out the positions with minority ethnic MPs. And this is a good thing from a role model perspective as once it becomes 'normalised' that of course minority ethnic MPs can be represented well at the highest level it becomes easier for young people from those backgrounds to aspire too.
And of course, currently if you look at (arguably - other opinions are available) the seven most significant political positions in office (rather than in opposition) - PM, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Mayor of London, FM of Scotland, FM of Wales - five of seven are held by people of minority ethnicity. That's actually quite remarkable and I think pretty well unimaginable just a few years ago.
-
James Cleverly
Kemi Badenoch
Kwasi Kwarteng
Nadhim Zahawi
Priti Patel
Rishi Sunak
Sajid Javid
Suella Braverman
All but one of these MPs have held at least one of the four high offices of state (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary)
I'm not completely dismissing what you're saying, the Tories do appear to have made a concerted effort to promote a more diverse membership (to questionable effect) and a more diverse parliamentary party with better results. At the same time, given the shit-show the past year of Tory internal politics has been, is there a fringe nutjob of any colour in the elected membership that hasn't been elevated above their capability?
O.
-
I'm not completely dismissing what you're saying, the Tories do appear to have made a concerted effort to promote a more diverse membership (to questionable effect) and a more diverse parliamentary party with better results. At the same time, given the shit-show the past year of Tory internal politics has been, is there a fringe nutjob of any colour in the elected membership that hasn't been elevated above their capability?
O.
I don't disagree for one minute on the shit-show.
However, weirdly this is a mark of achievement in equality. The argument goes that without equality to be able to rise to the top as a woman, or as a person from a minority ethnic background you have to be truly exceptional. Clearly you need to be much better than the white men who can get to the top being deeply mediocre. This is the kind of Obama-scenario, a person so head and shoulders above all other candidates in terms of his political abilities and ability to communicate to the electorate that he was able to become president. If he'd merely been the equal of other white, male candidates he'd have had no chance.
So an odd feature of equality is the ability to rise to the top and still be shit, just as white, establishment, men have been able to do for decades.
-
And this is a good thing from a role model perspective as once it becomes 'normalised' that of course minority ethnic MPs can be represented well at the highest level it becomes easier for young people from those backgrounds to aspire too.
That's only if you want to look up to role models who are complete and utter bastards.
-
That's only if you want to look up to role models who are complete and utter bastards.
I think for young black and asian people there have been plenty of examples of people like that who don't look like them.
I think the point is that it demonstrates that being from a minority ethnic background isn't a barrier. And hopefully many of those people might look at Sunak, Braverman, Cleverly (and for balance Khan, Yousaf) and think, yup I could get to that position too, but I wouldn't be as shit.
-
but I wouldn't be as shit.
Let us hope so.
-
This point came up in one of the Rest Is History podcasts on Ronald Reagan (I think it was in the subscriber only follow up). They contrasted his style with that of Margaret Thatcher.
Thatcher, apparently, always went to every meeting with aim of being the person in the room who was the best prepared. Ronald Reagan allegedly rarely bothered. They speculated that the contrasting style was due to the fact that Thatcher was usually the only woman present and more than that, most of her colleagues had distinguished war records.She simply couldn't get away with not being the best.
-
This point came up in one of the Rest Is History podcasts on Ronald Reagan (I think it was in the subscriber only follow up). They contrasted his style with that of Margaret Thatcher.
Thatcher, apparently, always went to every meeting with aim of being the person in the room who was the best prepared. Ronald Reagan allegedly rarely bothered. They speculated that the contrasting style was due to the fact that Thatcher was usually the only woman present and more than that, most of her colleagues had distinguished war records.She simply couldn't get away with not being the best.
To an extent this is the point I was making earlier on. In order to be accepted, as a woman leader, Thatcher needed to act like the men only better. So she needed to be better prepared, but also more aggressive, more decisive, more combative etc etc. With the exception of preparedness, these are all traits typically associated with men rather than women.
And I think we have the same issue today with Sunak - Johnson could easily become leader as a white, privileged male despite being clearly useless at actually doing the job. Everyone knew he was lazy, unethical, had no interest in detail etc etc - but he had all the normal traits expected of a tory leader.
For Sunak to be acceptable as a minority ethnic leader he cannot rock the boat in too many categories - so he needs to make up for his lack of 'whiteness', by being competent and above all by looking like a tory leader in all other respects - top public school, Oxford, the City, stinking rich etc etc.
As I pointed out on the Sturgeon thread - we have a remarkable situation where five out of the seven most significant political positions in power (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Sec, Home Sec, London Mayor, FM in Scotland, FM in Wales - other opinions are available) - are from minority ethnic backgrounds. But when you look at it another way nothing seems to have changed. Five out of seven went to private school (including all the non-Labour ones) and just one is a woman.