Monday, February 05, 2007
Paucity of women candidates amongst Unionist parties…
Suzanne Breen’s been adding up the figures on the gender cuts in the four main parties. Tthe SDLP is ahead of Sinn Fein on the selection of women candidates. The two Unionist party’s trail badly, with four (though three are actually sitting MLAs). The UUs come bottom of the league, where, in North Down, one older woman candidate (early blogger, Marion Smith) replaces the previous, younger one (Diane Peacock):
...the gender deficit remains, particularly in unionist politics. The UUP has one woman, Marion Smith, out of 37 Assembly candidates so far selected. Only four of 42 DUP candidates picked at this stage are women. Sinn Féin is running 11 women out of 37 candidates and the SDLP 13 out of 36.
Mick Fealty @ 01:44 PM
Out of curiousity how many women sought selection by the various parties?
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 04:39 PMas part of the heave to get rid of Rev Bob Coulter I hear that it was suggested by Cunningplan House that the fragrant Lady Di could be sent to S Antrim. Her name was also mentioned in F & ST, given her connections there. Seems the UUP weemen are less up for a bloody nose than the menfolk
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 04:58 PMDear me Darth,
still favouring substance over style, asking relevant questions.
You have women candidates, you are a modern party keeping up with the times.
End of story.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 05:04 PMDarth
Cunningplan House suggested that said lady be kept of any ballot anywhere.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 05:15 PMGot to agree with many comments, but at least when DUP bring on a woman it’s ‘cause she’s a good politician not just to bump up PC numbers!!
PS women usually have better things to do than get into the chaos of politics, we’re just too busy getting on with lifePosted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 05:53 PMglensman
I was only messing about with my opening shot - I wasnt out to offend.
However I was trying to hint at the differences in nationalist and unionist women.
ie you read a headline like this and you automatically think SF are doing something right and the unionists are doing something wrong.
However another way to look at this is not to automatically assume it is the Party’s fault - indeed anyone’s.
Somebody put a funny but perceptive link to Harry Enfield’s William Ulsterman on another thread.
One cannot generalize and there are always exceptions but as a unionist I can say that my community is a bit more tight arsed and dour than the nationalists - to me that is a fair comment.
Who say’s our women arent any different ?
My wife works as a Sub teacher in both Catholic and Protestant schools. She would say, once again generally, that the Catholic staff rooms are more crack and the Protestant ones (especially in the girls schools) are a bit more Presbyterian.
In addition Nationalist politics - especially SF - are on the radical fringe and thus providing an opportunity for radical women. Unionist politics are more conservative and conservative unionist women have little interest in politics. The radical ones have nowhere to go.
Interesting that the PUP leader is now a women.I can assure you that if women of calibre wanted to be UUP candidates nobody would be standing in their way. I cant speak for the DUP but I suspect it would be similar.
Therefore I think this has more to do with Unionist women and the nature of unionist politics than it has to do with unionist parties.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 07:08 PMI thin Fair Deal and John EB have come up with some credible reasons for the lack of women.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 07:23 PMJEB,
this Nationalist has been reading your comments for long enough to know you’re not a biggy.
As regards Mary Lou; let’s stick to her politics.
Really [:-0
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 08:07 PMThe Watchman: “I [think] Fair Deal and John EB have come up with some credible reasons for the lack of women.” Well, perhaps, but I have a few bones to pick with their and others’ arguments.
FD: “The general demonisation of Unionism as nothing but sectarianism has succeeded in putting off the middle classes and professionals especially - a key source for candidates in particular women.” The statement seemingly absolves unionist parties of responsibility for their own images; presumably it’s someone else’s fault that middle class professionals think of unionism as “nothing but sectarianism”. Perhaps unionist parties themselves might have a part to play in combating this perception, and attracting more middle-class support?
“They don’t have the resources to invest in the development programmes or promotional campaigns needed to address this glaring under-representation.” Aren’t the UUP and DUP supposed to be relatively business-friendly parties, at least compared to the SDLP and SF? If so, aren’t there any unionist businessmen or women willing to invest seriously in unionist parties, in the same way that the US corporate class supports the GOP? Or are they all looking south to Dublin?
JEB: “I think this has more to do with Unionist women...” The Republican party in the US would presumably have similar issues, given its conservative nature and evangelical base. It currently has about 10% women office holders (i.e., elected, not just candidates) in both the US House and Senate. The DUP is within at least striking distance of this (assuming all its women candidates win), but as for the UUP (your party, I believe) I think Mick put it best: “come on, one woman candidate in 37?”
(Incidentally, by way of comparison the Democratic Party in the US consistently does about twice as well as the Republican party in terms of electing women, both at the national level and at the state level.)
The Clockwoman: “Should a candidate not be selected do to his or her merit and not on age, sex, gender etc?” I think there are two good responses to this: The first is from a story on the NFL’s attempts to increase the number of black head coaches; as the assistant general counsel of the NFL put it:
If you ask me to search for the best candidates to fill a position and I bring you a batch of rĂ©sumĂ©s where everybody’s name is Smith, you’re bound to ask me why I think only people named Smith can do the job. You’re going to wonder, ‘Aren’t there any Joneses out there?’
Second, what exactly is wrong with selecting candidates at least partially on the basis of gender? In elections parties and their candidates are in effect trying to sell themselves and their policies to the electorate, and it’s a key principle of sales (and persuasion in general) that people are more likely to buy from people like themselves. It makes perfect sense for a party’s candidates to reflect the composition of the electorate to which it’s appealing.
P.S. One good source for information on women in US politics is the Center for American Women and Politics, from which the above statistics come.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 06:06 AMOK basically if the selection meeting has 100 W.A.S.P. Hetrosexual Males then i guess the chances are the candidate will be of the same class as the selectors. Maybe there should be D’Hondt for selection lol
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 09:25 AMGerman American
“The statement seemingly absolves unionist parties of responsibility for their own images”
1. They are not the only players on the pitch. If the words sectarian and big ot were not available many nationalists reps would be bereft of argument
2. The demonisation has proved more successful than the counter-demonisation especially when you don’t have enough people or money to counter it. It becomes a self-feeding phenomenon.“Aren’t the UUP and DUP supposed to be relatively business-friendly parties, at least compared to the SDLP and SF?”
1. The private/professional sectors have been cosying up to the NIO not the Unionist parties since Stormont was prorogued in 1972 e.g. in 1971 one Belfast UU association had over 20 soliciotrs on its books the year later after Stormont was abolished it had 2.
2. There is a generally more limited culture to corporate giving in NI compared with elsewhere.
3. How business friendly they are or not the parties haven’t been in a position to implement them.
4. Go to the Electoral Commission’s website and read the UUP and DUP’s accounts if you don’t believe me about their dodgy financial conditions. Read in particular the Auditor’s notes on the UUP accounts.
5. The general disinterest in politics is common throughout the Unionist community including the business sector.
6. There is a strong historical record of this even during the Third Home Rule Crisis Unionism couldn’t raise enough money despite strong establishment and business support.Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 11:16 AMFD: “The private/professional sectors have been cosying up to the NIO not the Unionist parties since Stormont was prorogued in 1972 e.g. in 1971 one Belfast UU association had over 20 soliciotrs on its books the year later after Stormont was abolished it had 2.”
Ah, the free market in action… I guess we’ll see if devolution (assuming it takes place) will make elected politicians (as opposed to unelected bureaucrats) relevant to NI business once more.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 02:46 PMI find it interesting that very few women become involved in politics or political blogging.
At least one of the male contributors here joined in the harassment of a NI female political blogger (now departed from the blogosphere.) The best advice they could provide, when she let it be known that she felt harassed, was that she should stop her blogging. Very enlightened.
Anonymity would appear to be the best option for women commentators. As a social experiment, readers may be interested to learn that views posted by a recognisably male commentator were received here on Slugger - and elsewhere - in an entirely different manner from the same views when expressed by someone who was perceived as female.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 04:46 PMG-A: “what exactly is wrong with selecting candidates at least partially on the basis of gender? In elections parties and their candidates are in effect trying to sell themselves and their policies to the electorate, and it’s a key principle of sales (and persuasion in general) that people are more likely to buy from people like themselves. It makes perfect sense for a party’s candidates to reflect the composition of the electorate to which it’s appealing. “
Because then you risk falling into the trap that if there are not enough women, you need to get some, regardless of the talent you’re passing over to get them. It is akin to the UC system, where less qualified ethnic applicants were accepted rather than more qualified Asian and Caucasian applicants. Your end-result is a lesser “product”—increased drop-outs, lower achievement, etc. The same happens when you start drafting politicians on what they are rather than who they are and what they can do.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 05:06 PMFD: “They are not the only players on the pitch. If the words sectarian and big ot were not available many nationalists reps would be bereft of argument”
As some political philospher once put it, politics ain’t beanbag. Now, it doesn’t hurt that there are no shortage of Unionists willing to live down to the stereotype. Likswise, its not as if Unionism has been all sweetness and light to Nationalist politicials.
FD: “The demonisation has proved more successful than the counter-demonisation especially when you don’t have enough people or money to counter it. It becomes a self-feeding phenomenon. “
In other words, their marketing is better than your marketing.
FD: “The private/professional sectors have been cosying up to the NIO not the Unionist parties since Stormont was prorogued in 1972 e.g. in 1971 one Belfast UU association had over 20 soliciotrs on its books the year later after Stormont was abolished it had 2. “
But isn’t this what Unionism wanted, or at least said it wanted—to be ruled by Mother England?
Hang ‘em with a new rope and still they complain… yeesh.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 05:12 PMDC
There are never any shortage of people wanting to play to stereotype.
“In other words, their marketing is better than your marketing.”
Yes.
“But isn’t this what Unionism wanted, or at least said it wanted—to be ruled by Mother England?”
At that time no. The decision was generally opposed by Unionists. The desire to be part of the UK state does not mean you blindly support every decision of government.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 05:29 PM“The demonisation has proved more successful than the counter-demonisation especially when you don’t have enough people or money to counter it.”
The classic case was quoted by Gerry Adams in one of his books where he mentioned that in Washington Sinn Fein successfully put their case through an undefunded office staffed by one woman against a British government staff of thousands.
Sometime it might be a good idea for unionists to consider the old story about ‘everybody’s out of step except our Billy’. It might just be that Irish unionists really are out of step with the 21st Century.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 05:31 PMlib
The government and Unionism are not the same thing.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 05:35 PMFD: “There are never any shortage of people wanting to play to stereotype. “
Ah, but it works so much better when you have a real live example actually living down to the stereotype.
Besides, the main reason people hate stereotypes is that, at the core, its got an ugly kernel of truth that no one really wants to address.
FD: “At that time no. The decision was generally opposed by Unionists. The desire to be part of the UK state does not mean you blindly support every decision of government. “
In for a penny, in for a pound. Besides, iirc, there aren’t enough MPs out of NI to make a speed-bump to Parliment, assuming arguendo you could get all of them seated and cooperating.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 05:39 PM“In for a penny, in for a pound.”
Yep and hence why we still vote to be part of the state.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 05:42 PM“The (British) government and Unionism are not the same thing”
Agreed - and even when they played on the same side as they did in Washington they lost the PR battle. Now it’s more a case of “Sauve qui peut” and the knives are really flashing. Always sad when allies fall out. ;-)
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 05:43 PMLib
BTW Before you get all misty eyed about the power of the lone revolutionary Adams was talking complete bollox.
1. He ignores the work and funding of the long-standing Irish-American groups.
2. He omits to mention the Irish government’s role and its part in encouraged America to be nice to SF.
3. He misrepresents what British diplomatic staff’s role is. Even if there are 1000’s of diplomatic staff in the US, the task of lobbying about Northern Ireland is not their full-time job.Also Unionism didn’t have a presence in America until the last 10 years and even then it was a part-time presence. Partially based on ideologically grounds, believed it wasn’t any of the USA’s business and the other one is it didn’t have the resources.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 05:54 PM“they played on the same side as they did in Washington they lost the PR battle”
We aren’t necessarily on the same side. Our interests often diverge.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 05:58 PMThe same happens when you start drafting politicians on what they are rather than who they are and what they can do.
Yup - Martina McIlkenny, Kathy Stanton and Caral ni Chuilin. What a triumverate of talent.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 06:06 PM“We aren’t necessarily on the same side. Our interests often diverge.”
The British are taking their leave while the unionists are staying and having difficulty in making the necessary compromises. Guess that counts as different interests, alright.
BTW A very important part of strategy is to pick your allies. As you point out neither the British nor the unionists have been very wise about that. Isolated in Brussels and awaiting the incoming Democrats in Washington = bad time for a gallant last stand.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 06:25 PM
