The Mail calls for Smith's head

ToMTom

She could go back to teaching and put into practice the fine ideas and fancy notions she has acquired in Cabinet.

However I doubt Dominic Grieve will get her scalp

David

I somehow feel that this isn't Smith's fault, that she's been put up to it by Brown, who then panicked and forced the change on the hoof. Much like Darling.

Verity

"...there is no other obvious female candidate for promotion to a top job."

What if there is a qualified man, though? Isn't this discrimination?

Ian

I'm afraid she is just another consequence of the Labour government's positive discrimination policy. Add her to the long list that includes Morris, Harman, Kelly, Jowell, Hewitt, Hodge, Blears etc.

Ian

Ian (4.04pm): You appear to have listed every female Labour Cabinet minister. Is no woman up to the job, or just none of these, or just no Labour woman?

At a time when David Cameron is committing himself to a Cabinet of which 1/3rd is female isn't it clear that all parties are appointing both on ability and in an effort for Parliament to be representative (no bad thing).

DavefromLuton

And this is what Richard Littlejohn wrote about Caroline Flint today
'Which brings us to Caroline Flint. Only in the Wonderful World of Westminster would this old boiler be considered something of a sex symbol.

I guess if you spent your life looking at Margaret Beckett and Ann Widdecombe, you would start to fantasise about Caroline Flint.

But frankly, she's always struck me as a hatchet-faced hag in need of a good wash. You'd have to drag her through a sheep dip full of Swarfega before I'd climb over Pole Dance Polly to buy her a candlelit supper. The ugliness comes from the inside, as it does with most of these gormless harridans.

But I can only assume she must be there for her looks. Because her brains aren't up to much.

Ian

Agreed.

It is still to many - sadly - inconceivable that a woman could on merit earn a position in the Cabinet.

Equally, I'm not sure Richard Littlejohn has much to boast about. The man looks like a natterjack toad.

Verity

Iain 4:04 - God, what a list of ghouls. Every single one of them a crashing failure.

Iain 4:21 - Parliament is representative in that we vote for our representatives. Ability in a cabinet position is all anyone cares about. The number of redheads, the number of people with blue eyes, Tall people, short people the number of dog owners, the number of cat owners ... is of no consequence. What any country needs is governance by the best brains, not quotas.

This is yet another reason I think David Cameron is a weak, misguided, shallow man. If it's trendy, he's for it. This is a man who thought the electorate would take him seriously as prime ministerial material if he bought a parka and went and stood on a Norwegian ice floe with two Huskies who were a helluva lot better looking them him. And he still believes, or says he believes, in man-made climate change.

Hysteria

it's disappointing when personal attacks take the place of well thought out arguments.

It's cheap, demeaning and just plain bad-manners.

Verity

4:53- Littlejohn doesn't pretend to make his living on his looks. He's talented. He earns his living in the private sector, and is well-rewarded because legions of people want to read what he has to say.

In other words, he has no point in common with any of the rubbish in the cabinet.

The Lavish Carbon Footprint

Hysteria - Then avoid disappointment by staying away.

I notice you said nothing of substance in your post.

James

Yes, I laughed myself silly at Uncle Rich this morning. He's been off the boil but last Friday and today he's back on form. Here's Friday's in case you missed it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034196/Six-years-sex-Arab-beach--did-expect.html

More worringly at the Mail, the normally reliable Quentin Letts' is going even more dewy-eyed over David 'did anyone care?' Davis and Dominic 'I heart the Human Wrongs Act' Grieve.

Quentin, mate, stop the posturing. You get to work in the Commons with armed police everywhere - we don't all, you know.

I do envy Quentin, sitting within spitting distance of so much scum.

Ian

Verity:

I wasn't really suggesting representation by eye colour; was I?

If you wanted to engage in the substance of the argument - although I don't want to tax you - here it is:

Female MPs have gender-specific experiences (e.g. Motherhood) which make them better placed (more ABLE) to influence, contribute, promote, policy debates that relate to those experiences. This is the inter-sect where having a representative Parliament is important. Quite simply women are more capable of legislating on certain issues.

Parliament, you say, 'is representative in that we vote for our representatives'. Parliament should also - I think you'd agree - represent our interests. But if Parliament is narrowly selected from a single demographic then certain interest become marginalised.

Ian

Ian (4:21)
In answer to your question: "none of these". Can't think of one with the stature of a Castle, Boothroyd, Williams or even Beckett - can you?.

As to a 30% quota, that may be fine in many jobs (even MPs), but I'd put Home Secretary right up there with brain surgeon as a job that should be filled by the most able person available.

TGF UKIP

Let's not forget, folks, that Cameron has promised that AT LEAST a third of his cabinet will be women - another half a dozen Spelmans?

Many people no doubt thought that preferment on merit was a quintessential conservative principle. However, as I never cease to point out neither Cameron nor this Tory Party could be remotely considered to be conservative.

Nicholas

They might call for it but they won't get it. This government is "sticky" and Wendy Alexander the exception that proves the rule. These mediocre bumblers just "learn from their mistakes and move forward" - yeah, right, to ever greater and more cretinous howlers. Their unique combination of arrogance and shamelessness resists all notion of decent resignation or understanding when a job is beyond them.

The double-speak government/BBC spin over this issue (did she or did she not mean that knife offenders would be made to visit their victims in hospital) has been the most blatant yet. When the spin began on Sunday (as usual) it was clear that this was precisely what she and Brown meant. Another piece of not properly thought through, headline seeking, knee-jerk New Labour claptrap to add to the humongous trail of ordure this most wretched of "governments" leaves behind them with every bungling, panic-stricken step.

Brown says he'll go when he finishes the job. What job, destroying or fouling every last worthwhile thing in this country? Go now, Brown, the English are sick of you.

mart

James:

"I still think, though, that Brown will be loathe to move the most senior female member of his team; particularly, as there is no other obvious female candidate for promotion to a top job."

Gulp. Is this still Britain? Britain, where you are innocent until proven guilty, and in which justice is blind? In which one's femaleness or otherwise is NOT a criterion for being chosen for such a job? Tell me this this is still Britain I'm living in!

If the Home Secretary is thought by the PM to be not up to the job, then he should appoint someone who is.

However, is there any evidence whatsoever that this is what he thinks?

Kevyn Bodman

I agree with Verity about representation in Parliament.
Elected members represent the voters.
Promote women if they are effective, but don't promote them because they are women.
I don't agree with Ian at 5.16pm.

Only women can be mothers, true.
Only teenage boys and young men can experience the almost permanent sexual desire of those years, but I'd rather be represented by people like me who are some years past that age and sometimes think with our brains.

JONNY

"I think David Cameron is a weak, misguided, shallow man"

That's him then. Facinated to know just who VERITY does consider suitable. Please name him sir. Then some of us maybe might have go at the adjectives.

Liz

Perhaps we should remember that Jacqui Smith's predecessors did not exactly cover themselves in glory. I do agree that she has been promoted beyond her level but that is hardly unique to the women in recent cabinets and that description seems to fit the current PM pretty well too.

Kevyn Bodman

But I think Littlejohn's comments about Caroline Flint are asinine.
It's easy to write insults about anyone, individuals or groups.
For what it's worth I think she's a good-looking woman but that's neither a qualification nor a disqualification for a Cabinet job.
As for whether she's ugly inside, I don't know but I've seen no evidence.
I have seen some mean-spirited people posting and commenting on Speccie blogs, though.

John

Verity, first you say that eye colour is irrelevant (true, which is why promoting someone for being female is stupid, dumb and moronic to the nth degree), and then you attack Cameron for not being as pretty as a husky.

You are pathetic.

John

Ian, there is no such thing as 'positive discrimination'. This is a dumb misuse of words, and evidence of brain atrophy. There is only discrimination for women and against men, just as racial discrimination is for whites/blacks and against blacks/whites. There is nothing whatsoever 'positive' about it, either morally or logically.

John

Kevyn: what tosh. We are not interested in your physical preferences in women.

Flint is very ugly inside, because she seeks to override local democracy (the asinine 'echo-towns') in favour of Stalinist dictat and central tractor production planning. That is fascist, and is very ugly indeed. Perhaps you approve of it?

Ann

"Only teenage boys and young men can experience the almost permanent sexual desire of those years"

Quite, quite untrue.

In answer to your question about Verity: she displays a permanent hysterical hatred of Cameron on every blog.

cuffleyburgers

To imply that the Labour female cabinet members are in any way worse than the males is grossly unfair and incorrect.

They are all incompetent to a degree that would not be tolerated for a femtosecond in the private sector, none more so relative to what is required, than our Glorious Leader, Mr bottler Brown.

Besides which they are congenitally dishonest, on the make and seemingly riddled with hatred of all the qualities, traditions and cultural attributes that used to make Britain stand out in the western world.

I mean Churchill was no oilpainting was he, but at least he had the virtues of courage, intellect, genuine moral purpose (as opposed to Mr Brown's ersatz version) and a high blood alcohol rate.

Ann

Cuffley, Churchill was all that plus more, and also an attractive man, imo.
None of the cabinet since 1997 are fit to even mention his name. They have all been useless idiots who would have failed miserably as milk monitors.

wgaf

I see no evidence that Labour can fill a decent cabinet with men or women of any quality. But the women especially seem to have a kind of magic ability to interfere nasally. I'd like to see Kate Hoey back, but that ain't gonna happen.

Verity

Ian 5:16 - Fear not. You don't present any points that "tax" me.

I hope the other posters will forgive me if I repost some of your predictable stream of consciousness: "Female MPs have gender-specific experiences (e.g. Motherhood) which make them better placed (more ABLE) to influence, contribute, promote, policy debates that relate to those experiences."

1. Parliament should not be having debates or promoting policies or debates about "motherhood", which is not, repeat not, government business. It is a private family affair, except in the NuLabour-NuLegislation merry-go-round.

2. Something that every fule no is, many mothers in public service tend to be officious and interfering. In other words, they reduce their role to mumsyness. They think they know best. They're often overbearing and officious. "Mummy knows best" is a sound rule for bringing up children, but not for public life.

Men are able to separate their home and public lives; many women cannot and I will share a secret with you: other women don't like being bossed about by mumsy women.

Women of objectivity and merit should indeed rise to the top if their brainpower and application merit it, but to decide to put X% in cabinet jobs because they have different secondary sexual characteristics from men is suicidal.

As Gordon Brown is finding out.

Verity

Ann writes of me: "In answer to your question about Verity: she displays a permanent hysterical hatred of Cameron on every blog."

This continual sniping is becoming tiresome. I don't comment on every blog. On the threads on which I do comment, I only refer to Cameron if it is he or the Conservative party that is being discussed on that particular thread. My comments are lucid and rational, whether you agree with them or not, not "hysterical".

For someone who has spent such long years marking science papers, you do seem to lack an element of detachment.

Fergus Pickering

Verity, surely the most officious and interfering person in the present Government is Gordon Brown. Perhaps he is a woman in disguise, but if that is so it must be one hell of a disguise. Other officious, interfering men - Peter Hain, Ed Balls, Lord Malloch Brown. The lovely Hazel Blears should be made Chancellor of the Exchequer!

Verity

Fergus Pickering, you are correct, but in his case, I think it is not bossiness but fear. He has always appeared to me to be a fearful, insecure man. I didn't think his refusal to wear white tie to the City dinner was arrogance, or even straight forward bad manners, for example. I felt he probably didn't know how to carry white tie off, so he made a merit of not adhering to the dress code. Towering rudeness dressed up as supreme confidence, to shield an insecure nature.

Kevyn Bodman

John at 6.13pm, and the two previous ones.
What are the acoustics like in an echo-town? How does your shouting sound to you?

Of course you're not interested in my pysical prefrences in women, have a look at what Littlejohn said and you'll see why I mentioned it.And you'll see that I said her looks are irrelevant for her job.
You seem to have gone back to the 70's for your argument-winning word, fascist.
This decade's word is 'racist'.

'You are pathetic' is not an argument-winner either.

There are different views of the proper role and status of local democracy, having a different one from you is not fascist.

I am Welsh, and campaigned and voted against the establishment of the Welsh Assembly.
Neither my side of the debate nor the other side was fascist.

mike

Verity and Fergus are very boring, please ask them to stop.

Charlie T

Flint makes (tries to make) a virtue out of her looks, its all part of her act and public persona. A bit like Browns apologists used to trumpet his so called superior intelligence as an example of how alround wonderful he was. So its fair enough to comment on her looks whereas it wouldn't be for most pols.As most (wisely) never seek to draw attention to their appearance. Of course a persons looks or lack of is subjective though I`m with Littlejohn on this one.

Ann

Verity snipes at Cameron for not being very handsome, and then she accuses ME of 'sniping'. She brings her hatred of Cameron into EVERY subject - Jews, Moslems, cakes and ale, the moon and sixpence -and then she complains about ME being 'tiresome'.

Sorry, Verity, the lack of detachment is yours. Your hysterical hatred has made you unable to step back and see how absurd your obsession is. I am commenting on this obsession with more detachment than you are able to bring to it.

Verity

Ann - I do not believe Cameron has the intellectual wherewithal or the moral compass to be the Leader of the Tories. It worries me and I draw attention to his shortcomings when he/the leadership is subject of the thread.

If I have grasped the concept correctly, blogs are for opinions.

You sound a little overwrought and nervous, but then it's late where you are.

Frank Pulley

mike

"Verity and Fergus are very boring, please ask them to stop."

Who are you talking to: Mummy? Are they interrupting your playstation game? If you don't enjoy the grown-ups debating wimmin 'n' politics, go to bed you little turd!

Verity.

Go girl. Every shy a coconut!

Ann

Oi! Whose side are you on? I'm in the same trench as Verity, I feel 'friendly fire' coming from somewhere, is it you? Put the safety catch back on until the enemy rears its head.

The whole regiment of monstrous wimmin in Brown's cabal should be locked in a room and forced to read Littlejohn's DM article of today, learn it by heart and then made to recite it 100 times as a penance for their sins of omission, commission and sheer incompetence. The essence of his broadside should be bottled and offered as a magic potion for all budding journalists; it evoked a level of merited, mischievous mirth in me that negated some of the frustration of the events of the past few weeks. Trouble is, every word is literally true, so it’s tragic, not comical and I now feel guilty for my spontaneous upsurge of hilarity.

I can imagine the tsunami of phone calls and emails that hit both the DoH and the Home Office yesterday after Smudger’s idiotic proposal suggesting that vicious, nay -murderous, juvenile knife wielding assailants should be carted to A & E Departments to drool over the results of their shivving expeditions. Jesus H Christ! Get her out of office, Gordon, before she does any more irretrievable damage. What is she (still) on? And some still say that ganja doesn't rot the brain!

Frank Pulley

Hey Fergus

Your lusting after nutty Hazel is becoming a little obsessional, isn't it? I suggest that you put it to her man! You never know your luck. Report back to us with the result.

John Lea

I think this particular blog needs a Michael Martin figure to call 'order' every now and again in a thick Glaswegian accent. I'm happy to oblige, coming from that neck of the woods myself. As for Jacqui Smith - she's a waste of space, out of her depth, and although more attractive than a pack of huskies, probably less effective at reducing crime. Bring back capital punishment and watch knife crime drop dramatically overnight. Oh, sorry, how stupid of me, we can't do that - we're a civilised country after all.

Ann

Verity, do try to concentrate. It is you who is overwrought, attacking Cameron's looks instead of his political qualities. You may need a cup of java and a Danish to help you focus on the point being discussed here. Your waffling about Cameron's looks has nothing to do with his intellect or morality, thus has no relevance to his capacity to be the Tory leader. All clear now?

Frank, I comment on issues and posts, and will continue to do so - and I don't care whether you think this or that poster is or isn't in the same camp.

John

I am sorry to see that Kevyn has such difficulty following simple concepts and the terms that describe them properly and accurately.

'Pathetic' referred to Verity's hypocrisy in applying different looks criteria to men and to women.

'Fascist' quite properly describes the statist, oppressive, dictatorial, rule-by-dictat approach that characterises this government, in this case Flint's determination to push through the risible 'echo-towns' in defiance of the proper applicable planning process, existing local and regional infrastructure plans, local wishes and indeed real-world facts (lack of water, lack of transport links, lack of jobs, green belt, conservation areas etc). The mental disorder that is manifested by such refusal to accept facts, on top of acting as though the democratic process and existing legislation simply did not exist when a minister has a whim du jour s/he is determined to carry out, this kind of capricious misrule, are core features of fascist governments.

Verity

Ann, an academic manqué who marks examination papers for a living and clearly feels she is the intellectual superior of others posting here, including Melanie - despite her posts being over-emotional and poorly written - writes to me with heavy sarcasm, "All clear now"?

What is clear is that you are an insufferable snob with delusions of intellectual grandeur which are not borne out in your writing.

Ann, you are not a moderator on this blog, Kindly restrain yourself from instructing others on how to behave, and specifying on what subjects you find it unacceptable for them to post.

How dare you sneer at a poster on another thread when he mentioned a two week trip through America's national parks? America's national parks are magnificent and spiritually reviving, and this poster had had the imagination to take an unusual holiday and be open to new experiences. He felt he had gained some small insight into how Americans think. You curled your lip and noted that he hadn't been in the US to mix with "academics in Chicago and San Francisco". Like you.

In fact, Ann, you are a scold and I won't be engaging further with you.

Frank Pulley

Verity

Don't be too hard on little orphan Annie, life must be very difficult for someone completely devoid of a sense of humour. She does fire off the occasional salvo in the right direction; I can only guess at why she is so uptight...but you would be cross if I mused about that audibly.

Ann

"Ann, an academic manqué who marks examination papers for a living"

LOL. You really have lost the plot, darling. I never said I did that for a living. I did that at the time in addition to developing academic courses at a number of different levels (GCSE, A-levels, university degrees) plus other things you won't be able to understand. And I haven't been an examiner for a while now. Moreover, examiners set papers, not simply mark them. Do some basic research before making such an utter prat of yourself in public. I think it's hilarious to see you post such nonsense, but you must be a masochist if you share my amusement at your pratfalls.

Ann

"academics in Chicago and San Francisco"

I never mentioned 'academics', darling. I was talking about normal intelligent people. What stuff are you on? You need to up the dose or come off it altogether.

You write plenty of sarcastic stuff about other posters, but can't take it at all when directed at you. What a sad person you are.