A reshuffle to win female voters?

I don't like the sound of this at all, but I'm not really surprised.

Oh S***!!!! That is bad for everyone.

What a load of tosh.

A chap from a state school, Pakistani background (albeit a very rich one).

Can't ruddy well win can they. What the hell is wrong with coming from a state school, having a Pakistani backround, being a self made wealthy man?? You forgot he is a Muslim is that a problem too.

As for Sajid Javid's views on women in the Bank of England I am not a feminist and I agree with him. What he is saying is you get the job on merit, not because you are a women, homosexual, black, white, purple or spotted dick. Not his words but you know what I mean.

What decent woman would want a job given to her simply because she is a female. Personally I would run a mile from taking a job if I thought I was not given it on my merits.I don't understand why women feel they have a god given right to demand for
example a company should have 50% of women on the board etc.

It all makes a mockery of what I think of as being a feminist, wanting to be given an equal opportunity to compete on a level playing field. The never ending quest for women to be deemed as poor souls who can't achieve unless they are parachuted into a job because of their sex is demeaning in my opinion.

Labour might have more women on their front benches but ye gods I think there are a few I would like to see got rid of. The Eagles sisters, Harriet Harmen would be a good starting point.

As for the Nicky Morgan I think she has an important role, Financial Secretary and being number three in the Treasury ain't bad, alongside Women's Minister.

I wish Sajid Javid had not been given promotion as a minister as he was good in a treasury position. I think Andrea Leadsom will be better than Nicky Morgan in the role she has left as Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

As for Morgan's personal views and indeed Andrea Leadsom, they have been outspoken critics of their own government and I think it is refreshing to see two women in posts that are not necessarily a--hole lickers and can speak their mind.

Out of interest wasn't the role of Culture Secretary drummed up by John Major, it probably would be cost effective to get rid of the department anyway.

Good to have some debate pogs and I'm sorry I don't have time this morning to answer all your points. Are you not at all concerned that women are so poorly represented in the cabinet or in the Tory party?
Am I right in assuming that you don't think women's interests deserve any profile or priority in a government?
Nothing wrong with going to a state school - just some of the headlines highlight that fact. Nothing wrong with being rich or a Muslim either. Not even anything wrong with being a banker if it gives you lots of useful knowledge on the financial system to bring to a role in government.
Just wondering whether DC has moved this person out of a role to which he was suited and up to a more prominent role, not because he was the perfect person, but because DC vaguely embarrassed by the ex boys public school white face of the cabinet as it stands (with an election coming up and all) .

Jess I am of the opinion that the appointment of a BME person to the Culture Secretary post is a strategic move by DC. Not strategic because Javid has all the skills &experience for the post tbut because he 'represents' section of socidty so far under represented. So a political move to appeal to a particular section of voters.
I am disappointed that DC .could not find a bright and intelligent woman to fill the post. I a
m sure they are there.

There are two possible reasons why there are only three women in the cabinet. Incidentally in terms of women's representation in cabinets there are only two countries whose record is worse, Ireland and Greece. But that's by the by.

The first reason may be that David Cameron has a real problem with women.

The second is that really are no able women in the Tory Party. They are all to be found elsewhere.

There is institutional sexism in government and having only three women in the cabinet is now an embarrassment for DC. I don't think anyone should get a job if they aren't there on merit, but the glass ceiling is clearly operating here. DC needs to get his backside in gear and have a good look at what is happening behind the scenes to prevent deserving women being placed in those jobs that lead to higher office. By the same token, the old boy network seems to be thriving - why aren't more male MPs being hung out to dry over their fraudulent expenses claims?

Good point, MiceElf. Perhaps no self-respecting woman would want to sit alongside these buffoons.

Am I right in thinking that of the three women in the Cabinet only one, Theresa May, is a full member and so the only one with a vote?

Yes, and it's even worse than that. The Telegraph has a good comment

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10758099/Maria-Miller-quits-How-can-there-be-no-mothers-in-David-Camerons-Cabinet.html

Thanks for the information JessM, I haven't read the papers yet today and wasn't aware of the new appointments. There are too few women in parliament, which remains dominated by white men in suits. Of course individuals should be appointed on merit, but the question remains - why are so few BME or female MP's are selected.

I'd be interested to know the numbers available for selection. It's rather like the Police being told to appoint x number of ethnic minority officers when they don't have anywhere near that many ethnic minority applicants.

You see I just don't get the fact Sajid Javid's appointment has to be viewed as 'a strategic move'.

When will people stop seeing colour, sex, background as a reason to give somebody a job, or not. Can't Sajid Javid be seen as a person who has gained promotion on merit.?

No, I don't have a problem with the lack of women in the Cabinet.. I'm b------d if I would keep a woman, ethnic minority etc. etc in a job or give them a job purely for those reasons. Not only is it poor management it is patronising to the person involved.

It begs the question to me, if women have been 'installed' to comply with some sort of 'quota' do those women ever think to themselves Am I here because I am good at my job or just to make my boss/political party look good. I watch Parliament and I can honestly say some of the women are cringe worthy and it makes me wonder if that is the case. Before anybody rounds on me as being sexist there are also men I would say the same of.

There are some good women in the Conservative party in good positions and I would like to see them promoted. When they do I should think they will be pleased to know they got their promotion through merit not because they are a woman. The problem is the media circus and the users of 'spin' will never be satisfied and they will still say Cameron only promoted them because they are female. Can't win.

It is absurdly naive to believe that ministerial appointments – or any political appointments – are made purely on the basis of merit. (In fact, in some cases, there doesn't seem to be any merit involved at all.) Otherwise the Whips' Office would be redundant and the electorate would need to be told/shown the truth about their Masters before 2015.

Quite absent - there are many very able MPs who never get a sniff at a junior minister role because they don't play the right games.
It has always been the case that MPs will progress more successfully if the are able to fit in, build alliances and find people who will mentor them informally and champion their careers. It is not unreasonable to suppose that a lot of this happens "over a pint". These are not jobs that are advertised, with proper HR safeguards, that anyone can apply for. In fact now I come to think about it they are not compliant with employment law. (Not a bad idea if they were!)
Some commentators have noted that Osborne is very good at talent spot tin, recruiting and promoting on the basis of merit (whereas Cameron is not) and that it is no coincidence that 2 of "his people" have been promoted in this reshuffle.
It will be very interesting to watch the future progress of these two politicians, that's for sure.
pogs - any woman that even survives in the male-invented and male-dominated environment of the house of commons has my admiration. I think if the tables were turned the atmosphere in the house would be less like a particularly disruptive class of 15 year olds in a boys school. Not all parliaments behave like this.

Absent and Jess M

So basically what you are saying is it doesn't matter what party, which MP not one of them has earnt their position. Fair enough, at least your view appears to be a across all parties.

I still think it is patronising to suggest somebody has been given their role just because of their colour or sexuality.

I am not naive I just share a different view on the matter.

Not saying that at all. Just saying that there a lot of able MPs, but few of them become ministers because it is an informal system of promotion that does not promote the best applicant. It depends on someone further up the ladder spotting your talent. You have to get the chance to be a junior minister to prove yourself and if you're face doesn't fit then you are unlikely to get that chance. Politics comes into it - they promote those that support their wing of their party (pro-european/anti european or whatever) The system certainly does not mean that the most talented, or the most knowledgeable MPs get to be ministers or shadow ministers. Surely you don't think that it does? How on earth could it?

Those who say that only people who have merit are appointed to the highest positions, are in effect saying that because few women are appointed to high positions then it must be because they lack merit. I don't believe that is true. Women out-perform men at university but seem to fade into the background thereafter.

Some argue that because women have babies they lose focus and prioritise their families. But they are, to some extent, "conditioned" to do this. A successful businesswoman (I can't remember who) said in an article I read recently that she was frequently asked by journalists whether she employs a nanny. She commented that she had never seen such a question posed to a successful businessman. Hardworking and successful women are also more likely to be criticised for neglecting their children or taking risks (e.g. women journalists who report from war torn countries). But these sort of remarks aren't directed at men who have children.

Women are often derided for wanting to "have it all", but are the same comments levelled at men?

I think it's fair to say that if two parents are working all hours and having little time to spend with their children, that is probably not a good thing. But why is it always the woman who is expected to bear the ultimate responsibility for domestic issues and consequently take a back seat in terms of employment and career progression? What about men taking a back seat for a change?

I think Michael Rosen got it spot on.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/11/open-letter-sajid-javid-culture-secretary-michael-rosen&sa=U&ei=iXhMU6D2KojHtAbq5YDwAw&ved=0CAsQFjAC&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGVsd2eS35W9eF37qEV6sExLDa2Qw
Apparently there has not been a minister who knows about culture since Chris Smith.

Brilliant and concise bit of writing. And he makes and excellent point. This appointment is not about the arts, or any other aspect of culture (e.g. sport).