Agreed. I've many problems with the cabinet. The colour of their skin is not one.

The UK never seems to mind its total lack of representation.

hey, it's just the english who don't have their own devolved parliament, but will this change?

I'm most concerned we now have a health secretary who thinks homeopathy works! Anyone who doesn't understand scientific evidence and data should't be anywhere near a department that should be data led

@Pete U - would you stop the NHS issueing placebos too? Homeopathy might only work on the same level but criticising someone who believes in it doesn:t make a lot of sense. I don:t believe in homeopathy and think there are far bigger reasons to be against our new Health Minister rather than attacking his support for homeopathy.

@Putin - I would love to see a cabinet being more reflective of society and there could be stratagies put in place that brings this about. But it would be wrong to keep say Lady Warsi in post if Grant Shapps is more able. I don@t express an opinion as to which of those two is better, but when Cameron has to decide which is better, I would prefer he didn't decide on skin colour.

A sure fire way of setting back women in politics is to throw them into the cabinet before they're ready so they can make arses of themselves in front of the media. Before getting a seat at the top table a politician needs to prove themselves and test their skills. The Tories have in recent history failed to encourage enough women to try for power, but is changing as shown by the recent significant increases in women Tory MPs. The modernisation is moving at pace, but skipping stages will only harm the process.

@Maniac - I think knowingly prescribing placebo treatment is a different question, and ethically challenging. Right now, the action standard should be better than placebo, and homeopathy fails that test.

Being supportive of treatments without evidence is not a good stance for the man now in nominal charge of our health service.

...but when Cameron has to decide which is better, I would prefer he didn't decide on skin colour.
... or whether their reproductive organs are on the inside or the outside.

... it's clear their organs are mostly located on their foreheads...

Pete U +1.

Was having the conversation about homeopaths earlier today. They give each patient about an hour to get to know them... The patch adams hospital is based around the idea that hospitals are actually a bad place to heal people, you take them out of their home; you stick needles in them and tube up their noses and down their throat; you seperate them from their social support networks.

If homeopathy does work, apart from 'just being a placebo' it works because they provide support and care. They make you feel like they're going to make you feel better, and the psychosomatic effect helps a lot for SOME specific immune system related diseases. (the headline 'cancer cured by power of mind' was a blatant mis-understanding of the statistical evidence - they showed that with group therapy and social support from other cancer sufferers patient lived longer better quality lives - their immune system slowed the rate of cancerous growth but they still died eventually... And this was only the case for cancers where there was no effective treatment; but the fact is, the 'power of the mind' is better than some treatments, while we're still searching for treatments which DO work)

Thus we should be more interested in improving the NHS (or other medical systems) by completely changing the way we practice medicine.

People who have a god complex or are anti-social should be allowed diagnoise and prescribe, but not see patients (see Dr House) people (perhaps nurses) should be trained to take care of, get to know and offer support and care to their patients. And then convey to the diagnosticians what is wrong...

Patch Adams (the guy who inspired the robin williams film) has offered an alterntive view of medicine. Look up his talk on TED, it is very good.

As for women in politics, well you will see successful women playing the same dominance games men play. To be successful they end up acting like men, and the most successful are those who are good at acting this way naturally (not all men are good at this kind of competition either, i for one hate it...) so even with women in politics, if they are thinking and acting like men it is not going to do much good, or change our political system. (looking at lucinda credington, the irish mp (well TD if you want to caint as gaeilge) who was elected in my electoral district. She is a painful individual who looks to be pushing social justice back decades... Or at least she is trying to..)

@orathaic - I agree entirely that some women MPs act like men. However, women, ethnic minorities, gays and the disabled can and do have things to contribute because they have different life experiences. I'm not suggesting that a weaker candidate should ever get promoted on the grounds of sex, gender, colour, etc only that havin a mix of people in top positions can make for better representation and may together be greater than the sum of the parts. What I'm saying is when a PM can appoint 20 people all at the same time and the best 20 people all score 90% on the best person for the job scale are all white straight able-bodied males, that's great but it may be possible to appoint 5 people at 80% on that scale that when combined with the 15 others make a greater tota because of their differing life experiences. Does ha make sense or am I waffling?

i'm not sure about your waffle, but i think the idea of bringing in people from all walks of life to advise (not just specialist advisors) means that anyone could do the job of collecting their advice and acting on it in the best interest of various minorities...

Of course if you wnat ot see parity in female-male participation in politics there is another alternative. You could create a second house of parliment. Currently in the UK the hosue of lords acts in some kind of advisory role; which may be great for helping represent minorities... currently in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) we have an upper house, the senate, based on the UK system as it stood circa 1921 - so same purpose, but different way of becoming a senator... which i will not get into.

Both systems could abolish these upper houses and replace them with a women's house. The two seperate but equal parliments could act to represent bring many more women into politics and counter balance the male dominated occupation.

It might even break the 'male culture' which we see within our political system.

That said, i don't know if A) this fairly represents inter-sex, trans or agendered people. Such simple gender/sex binaries are more complicated in reality. B) should form two constituencies, where women only get to vote for the women's parliment and men the men's or simple all everyone to vote for who they want with only women allowed to run for the female house of commons and men the male house...

C) i don't htink this brings us towards a more egalitarian society, as seperate but equal is not neccesarily fair or good.

Lastly this idea comes from one which was pushed by some in the youth political movements in RoI, ie that of a youth constitucency - that is one which only 16-25 year olds could vote for. Sure it is merely a break from the geographic representation in favour of one where age is the common gound where you choose to vote - and as such politicians trying to get elected by the youth would try to appeal specifically to this demographic - the point here being to make more young people interested and involved in politics because someone was trying to make it interesting specifically for them...

ok. So that may be a better idea... but i think it kinda goes off point a little bit. What were we talking about?

Funnily enough I disagree completely on the women MPs acting like men. At least not like any men I know. What they do do is act like politicians, which is an entirely seperate species altogether.

What's funny is that when white men are appointed to the cabinet, it's accepted as given that they were appointed based on merit. But when anybody not rich, white, and male is appointed, it's claimed that they're not 'ready' or 'qualified' enough. And enough with the British habit of reducing demographics to sexual organs and skin pigmentation. You know damn well that sex and race have a bearing on people's social experiences and their relative opportunities to advance.

But keep on pretending as if representation doesn't matter and then wonder why nobody except rich white males and aspiring rich white males supports the Tory party.

If women weren't allowed to vote the Tories would have lost every election for the past 50 years. You have an unusually large amount of nonsense in your post tonight, Putin. Tory women who get top positions are always the best people for the job. Labour appoint women to power to make themselves look good, and it shows in how badly many of them run things.

No Tory women get any 'top positions'. The one high level cabinet member was *demoted* by the Tories.

http://comres.co.uk/poll/680/independent-political-poll.htm

So much for the lie that women support the Tories.

" There is a large “gender gap”:40 per cent of male voters will vote Conservative, 39 per cent Labour and 8 per cent Lib Dem. But only 29 per cent of women voters will vote Conservative, while 45 per cent will vote Labour, and 14 per cent Lib Dem. "

Keep on belittling any woman who gets a top post and claiming that the reason there is a lack of women at the top of your party is because there are none who qualify.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/23/why-women-vote-boris-johnson

So much for the lie that it's a lie that women support the Tories

"He (Boris) scored a whopping 18-point lead among female Londoners (59% to 41%), although Ken scored better with men (53% to 47%) in a YouGov poll for the Evening Standard"

Also, when was it that Home Secretary stopped being a high level cabinet position? Only Chancellor and PM are ranked higher.

Theresa May, the same person advocating quotas for the Tories. I guess you'll use her as a token but not listen to what she has to say.

A mayoral election with an oddball candidate is your proof of women holding up the Tory party for 50 years?

No, Putin, the mayoral election of a city with a population greater than Denmark fought by two established political figures is my proof that women have voted Tory very recently. I will let you find the figures for the election of the past 50 years yourself.

It is possible, Putin, to respect someone without agreeing with everything they say. And as I said before, Tory women are not tokens. You'll be claiming we had a token female Prime Minister next!

Those two candidates are two of the sillier political figures in your politics. They don't reflect any larger pattern.

"Tory women are not tokens. You'll be claiming we had a token female Prime Minister next!"

Which is why you hide behind May & Thatcher so you can claim your boys club of a party isn't a boys club.

Good Lord, you actually are!

Johnson and Livingstone both have a sense of humour and the common touch. This does not, as you seem to think, make them silly or fools. Still, as you seem to have so little respect for the people of London and British voters in general I'm surprised you care so much about our government.

Anyway, I'm off to sleep soon so let's assume we've got to the stage in the debate where someone brings Stalin in to it and call it a night.

In 1997 - 44% of women voted Labour, 32% Tory. 2001 - 42% for Labour; 33% for the Tories; 2005 - 38 to 32%.

So what was your point again?

I see you've invoked the obligatory "Anglophobia" trope. For someone who brags about his own xenophobic tendencies, and pokes anybody who dares take offense too easily, you're being quite sensitive.

"Johnson and Livingstone both have a sense of humour and the common touch. This does not, as you seem to think, make them silly or fools."

I guess being a bigot is having the 'common touch'.

Anglophobia? I never made any such claim. I simply pointed to the fact that you said that the vast majority of Londoners voted for the silliest of candidates. Unless I read it totally wrong and you respect people for voting for idiots I have to assume that you don't hold them in high regard.

My claim was that the Tories wouldn't have won any election in the past 50 years if women didn't have the right to vote. In 97 and 01 the Tories didn't win so those stats obviously don't apply. In every election they did win they had the majority of the female vote and a small minority of the male vote

And I see that you are now claiming that arguably the most multicultural city in the world voted in a bigot? You are on form tonight!

What would you call what he said about Chinese people? About the Congolese who Tony Blair visited? Is the London political class immune from bigotry? I can tell you the NYC political class isn't (remember Giuliani?) It's not as if people who lead big multicultural cities are automatically angels.

"My claim was that the Tories wouldn't have won any election in the past 50 years if women didn't have the right to vote. "

And they also wouldn't have lost the elections they lost had women not voted, so what's your point?

After looking at historical data it's apparent that prior to the 1980s there was a substantial pro-Tory gender gap for women. That gap has declined and is now non-existent or if anything pro-Labour. But I guess that total reversal of appeal requires no updating of the male domination of the Tory Party.

What I find disappointing is that privileged rich educated Etonians that go into politics end up supporting their own rather than doing what is right for the country end up giving tax breaks to the rich which is completely ill-timed and inappropriate..
The Tories being a bit sexist and a bit racist, that's nothing new. I think the rich mix of ignorance and arrogance from people like Osborne is a disasterous cocktail for the UK economy, these guys are ignoring the reality and gravity of what is happening.
This is the latest crazy mental idea to boost the economy, only a bunch of retards could come up with this, for a limited period of time they have effectively removed planning laws for large back garden developments in an attempt to boost the building trade. The actual problem is not lack of permission for building development but suitable funding to finance the developments with permission or people being cautious with their money and delaying developments until the economic outlook turns a bit more positive. This latest back of a fag packet policy will lead to planning blight and misery for many thousands of people across the country, it's a fucked up stupid idea. What they could have done was to keep the planning rules but temporarily removed the fees and sped up the process so it doesn't cost £150 and take 8 weeks for some planning officer with delegated powers to tell you that you can put up a garden fence, that would have been a welcome change.
I can accept and forgive Tories being right-wing, this is what they do and this is what people voted for. It is the sheer incompetence that is offensive, they don't seem to have grasped the basics of what makes an economy work.
In saying that Cameron is desperate for his own personal popularity and to convince normal folk think he has the common touch, pastiegate was a great example, being pictured with as many Olympic gold medallists another opportunity he can't decline.
The real hero who has emerged from the Tories is the bumbling BoJo who comes across as honest, patriotic, caring and somebody in touch with normal people, how much would the Tory toffs in the cabinet pay for some 'Boris Johnson street cred'.

Sorry but isnt Boris the same guy who famously bashed working class Liverpool? Common touch?

@nigeebaby - the simplest way of changing the planning system is to make planning decisions time limit. We have a stake of ex-industrial and infill plots in my area with planning permission that remain an eyesore. If developers knew their planning would be revoked if the building wasn't built within 3 years all those plots would be built on for fear of their asset being devvalued.

Putin - BoJo is another posh schoolboy and a buffoon but people like him because he is a buffoon and they can see he is actually a genuine person trying his best and that he cares. He is quite politically incorrect but then he is a Tory and the large majority of them are like that. If you know Liverpool then maybe he shouldn't have said what he said but he wasn't far from the truth

Boris is a damned clever chap who realised there was a growing public hatred of the modern politician that's so terrified of saying something that may be considered a gaff that they end up saying nothing of any significance at all. By saying what he thinks on a regular basis he has achieved an uncommon respect and near immunity from the pc police in the media that haunt most of our MPs. In many ways Ken Clarke is similar, but prefers eloquence over humour to get his message across.

Answer this question he honestly, 'if you were a politician who would you most like to be like?' Boris Johnson, Ken Clarke, David Cameron, Ed Milliband, A.N. Other (please state).

I suspect people would like to think hey wouldn.'t just tow the party line and fail to answer any direct question. They see these qualities in people like Boris and hat is what attracts people. They are aware that the policies of their party won't change but want 'human' policitions rather than clones. For he record, I wouldn't ever vote for Boris, but I can see his attraction.

I'd have to go for Ken Clarke, although Hague comes a close second. I can't think of any of the current crop of leading Labour politicians I would consider, but Jack Straw, Tony Ben, and even John Prescott demand a grudging respect.

They always seem more appealing after they leave power.

Hague? I thought he was a good speaker when he was leader but he screwed up on Lords reform, not being able to control his own party in the lords who openly rebelled and he also presided over sending covert troops into libya which were captured by the rebels. Not sure if he has an idependant mind.

No one could control the Tories at that time. They needed a few more defeats to knock some sense into them. As far as Libya goes, Hague saying Bengazi was the highlight of the political year! More seriously, I try no to judge a politician on the result of their gamble, but their willing to take the gamble in the first place. If US special forces had failed to get Bin Ladin and upset Pakistan Obama would have taken a hell of a lot of flack. As it worked he was praised. It seems rather unjust.

I agree that Tories were ungovernable and they appear to be moving back in that direction at the moment. I like a gamble too, but my reward must exceed my risk to make t worth doing, what was Hague's anticipated reward?

If I *had* to be a Tory - Ken Clarke
If I *had* to be a LibDem - Vince Cable
If I *had* to be Labour - Dennis Skinner.

The worrying thing is that as poor as the Tory talent pool is (Gove? Hunt? Lansley? Osborne?), the opposition doesn't inspire any confidence at all

Apparently all you have to do is make outlandish comments and people think youre clever.

Hague is the most overrated orator the Tories have, and a real neocon.

Whats wrong with Balls, really?

Has anyone heard Hague speak, it is form of handicap but I can't help laughing, as a result I can't take anything he says seriously...... he's a twat as well !!

Blair wiped the floor with him without breaking a sweat. If I were a Tory Id be Philip Blond or Ian Duncan Smith.

If I were a Tory MP I would be Reckless ..... he was so pissed in the bar one night he couldn't make the vote when the division bell rang, he was laying outside on the grass completely intoxicated......what a guy, Reckless by name, reckless by nature