David Cameron reshuffled his cabinet this week. He didn't actually use the V word but his spokespeople made it clear that the key criteria for demotion was having a pair of gonads, while having a vagina, was a ticket to cabinet.
In an effort to try and 'con' women voters, Cameron and his key strategist, Lynton Crosby, decided to show their gender sensitivity by increasing the number of female members (no pun intended) of the cabinet.
This is gesture politics of the worst kind. Right up there with Labour's all women candidate lists and other Harriet Harman (or is it Harperson?) inspired feminazi lunacy.
Michael Gove was an excellent Secretary for Education. You don't believe me? Consider the bile and vitriol heaped upon him by the socialists in the teaching unions. Evidence that he is doing something right, surely? Bear in mind, the unions aren't arguing about pay or pensions, per se, they are reacting to Gove's plans to dramatically reduce the power of the leftist education establishment. That, and his plans to focus on having British children leave school, at least with the ability to read and write and understand basic maths. Come to think of it, maybe Cameron was right, what kind of an evil bastard is Gove? Who does he think he is, raising standards and making teachers accountable?
I do wonder though, what goes through the minds of politicians and political strategists when they propose such gestures.
Do they sit around running flags up flagpoles to see who, in a blue sky scenario, salutes? How do we appeal to women voters, is the question? I know let's appoint more women to the cabinet says the 'wet behind the ears' intern. We can show the softer side of conservatism, he continues, spilling his soya, demi frappe latte, in the process. He goes on, 'we can even get some pretty ones in and then some of the chaps will be happy at the sight, as well'.
The wizened old Central Office apparatchik asks whether the Conservatives just might attract more women if they had policies that appealed more directly to women? Policies that left women (and men) with more of the money that they earned. Policies that rewarded those women that worked for a living more than those that chose to live off of welfare. Policies that put a value on married women that choose to raise a family or be a carer to family members and were appropriately recognised through the tax system. ' I just wonder', she mused, 'if women might just see through the gesture and be angered by the attempt to so blatantly try to con them? That women might say, " must be an election soon, the men are throwing some of the sisters a few scraps".
Crosby and his acolytes would listen to such and then politely (mustn't upset the women, you know) move on and push the fatuous politics that we have seen in the reshuffle.
I am a man but dare to posit how a woman would see this. I suggest that women want to be considered on merit. They don't need quotas or to make-up some 'reasonable' percentage of a cabinet or political party hierarchy. They know that since this is still a 'mans world', they have to work that much harder to be considered as an equal (and they still better look presentable as well!!). They also know that sometimes the effort isn't worth the reward (as do some house-husband men) and the alternative is more appealing. They know that there remain an older generation of men and modern day neanderthals that haven't quite got 'it' yet but that doesn't bother them over-much. Time is on their side. They don't want preferential treatment just equality.
I think they would tell Cameron and Miliband (Clegg and the Lib Dems are finished!) that rather than gesture politics where your genitalia matters more than your mind, they want policies that address issues that concern them.
Not surprisingly those policies are also appealing to male voters.
I could go on but I think you get the gist.
I prefer to use the word people rather than men or women as it is the lives of people, both men and women, that are affected by politics. People don't need gestures. They need government to shrink in size and let more things be decided by people. They need taxes to be reduced and the money that is earned by the people to stay with the people. They need debt to be reduced (smaller government) so as to reduce the burden on future generations. And so on.
What people need is for the elite to understand that in the new iDemocracy people, or women and men, if you prefer, see through gestures, very quickly.
In an effort to try and 'con' women voters, Cameron and his key strategist, Lynton Crosby, decided to show their gender sensitivity by increasing the number of female members (no pun intended) of the cabinet.
This is gesture politics of the worst kind. Right up there with Labour's all women candidate lists and other Harriet Harman (or is it Harperson?) inspired feminazi lunacy.
Michael Gove was an excellent Secretary for Education. You don't believe me? Consider the bile and vitriol heaped upon him by the socialists in the teaching unions. Evidence that he is doing something right, surely? Bear in mind, the unions aren't arguing about pay or pensions, per se, they are reacting to Gove's plans to dramatically reduce the power of the leftist education establishment. That, and his plans to focus on having British children leave school, at least with the ability to read and write and understand basic maths. Come to think of it, maybe Cameron was right, what kind of an evil bastard is Gove? Who does he think he is, raising standards and making teachers accountable?
I do wonder though, what goes through the minds of politicians and political strategists when they propose such gestures.
Do they sit around running flags up flagpoles to see who, in a blue sky scenario, salutes? How do we appeal to women voters, is the question? I know let's appoint more women to the cabinet says the 'wet behind the ears' intern. We can show the softer side of conservatism, he continues, spilling his soya, demi frappe latte, in the process. He goes on, 'we can even get some pretty ones in and then some of the chaps will be happy at the sight, as well'.
The wizened old Central Office apparatchik asks whether the Conservatives just might attract more women if they had policies that appealed more directly to women? Policies that left women (and men) with more of the money that they earned. Policies that rewarded those women that worked for a living more than those that chose to live off of welfare. Policies that put a value on married women that choose to raise a family or be a carer to family members and were appropriately recognised through the tax system. ' I just wonder', she mused, 'if women might just see through the gesture and be angered by the attempt to so blatantly try to con them? That women might say, " must be an election soon, the men are throwing some of the sisters a few scraps".
Crosby and his acolytes would listen to such and then politely (mustn't upset the women, you know) move on and push the fatuous politics that we have seen in the reshuffle.
I am a man but dare to posit how a woman would see this. I suggest that women want to be considered on merit. They don't need quotas or to make-up some 'reasonable' percentage of a cabinet or political party hierarchy. They know that since this is still a 'mans world', they have to work that much harder to be considered as an equal (and they still better look presentable as well!!). They also know that sometimes the effort isn't worth the reward (as do some house-husband men) and the alternative is more appealing. They know that there remain an older generation of men and modern day neanderthals that haven't quite got 'it' yet but that doesn't bother them over-much. Time is on their side. They don't want preferential treatment just equality.
I think they would tell Cameron and Miliband (Clegg and the Lib Dems are finished!) that rather than gesture politics where your genitalia matters more than your mind, they want policies that address issues that concern them.
Not surprisingly those policies are also appealing to male voters.
- Voters worry about taxes, which are too high - both relatively and proportionately.
- They worry about debt, their own and the government's.
- They are concerned about the future and what it holds for them and their children (back to national debt again).
- They are concerned about immigration at the national level - fear of being 'swamped', if I can use that phrase - and at the local level, in some cases - no jobs available for their children.
- I don't think people are overly concerned about Britain's position on the world stage - we've done our bit and look where it has got us - wounded veterans, increased debt and people that now target us on our on streets!
- Talking of our streets, crime is always a concern. Crime isn't about statistics it's about feeling safe and knowing that those that do wrong are punished. And that especially includes those in high places who commit two crimes - the actual offence and then the abuse of public trust.
- I do though think that people are concerned about the EU and the erosion of British democracy - the sense that Britain and its people are getting lost inside the EU and that we, as individuals, don't count anymore - sort of 'what's the point of worrying about all these other things if I personally, can do absolutely nothing as an individual or as a mass collection of individuals (call it a national majority) about what is being done to me and the ones I love and care for?'
- Education is a big issue but it isn't about the sex of the Secretary of State. It is about educating children.
- The NHS is a huge issue. This is a failing organisation. We can see it isn't about money so politicians need to stop promising more and start thinking the unthinkable.
I could go on but I think you get the gist.
I prefer to use the word people rather than men or women as it is the lives of people, both men and women, that are affected by politics. People don't need gestures. They need government to shrink in size and let more things be decided by people. They need taxes to be reduced and the money that is earned by the people to stay with the people. They need debt to be reduced (smaller government) so as to reduce the burden on future generations. And so on.
What people need is for the elite to understand that in the new iDemocracy people, or women and men, if you prefer, see through gestures, very quickly.
No comments:
Post a Comment