Similarly in politics; as a Liberal I’m all for proportional representation, well beyond the narrow confines of parties. But if women in Parliament turn up in suits of armour (however beautifully tailored) and play on the adversarial agenda nothing is gained for men or women.

Bringing more feminity into politics, more outrage at the genuine pain felt by those who live in war zones, more collaboration, more compassion and more authenticity by women (and men!) in politics would bring much needed warmth and human development of our society.

Thomas – sorry, didn’t respond to your point earlier. I suspect more women gravitate towards being a magistrate rather than a politician because it is a less exposed role. Politics is often harsh and not woman-friendly in its conduct. To me – that just means we need to change it – but I can see why many women are put off.

So you’ll be jumping on the task of getting more people in poverty in to parliament too then (though that of course creates a paradox)? And perhaps more disabled people? I’m not sure if ginger people are proportionately represented either. We also should look to ensure there is fair representation of those that suffered child abuse, those that are obese and those that are the victims of serious crime.

You see, without actually physically putting all of these demographics in to parliament there is no way that their views can possibly be represented or considered. I mean…that *is* what you’re saying Lynne, right?

But I speak as I find – and of course – if you read the post as a whole you will see I am advocating a balance between, for example large infrastructure transport projects and the ‘soft measures’ like walk to school, safe routes to school, transport that serves domestic function rather than working function. And I do speak from experience – which is why I have used transport as a metaphor simply to demonstrate what the absence of women (or whichever gender for that matter) from decision making delivers in real terms.

It isn’t sexism – it is speaking as I find and laying out there for all to see. Of course it shouldn’t be that way – and not all men behave badly in Parliament and not all women behave well – these are sweeping generalisations. My use of ‘macho boys toys’ is probably not PC but talking about the longest train or biggest airport in those terms makes the point, in an audience with a sense of humour generally rates a smile (if not a laugh) and demonstrates a contrast.

So – to all those offended by a truth – let’s change that truth – so that these arguments become specious. Because for all those decent men who wouldn’t dream of behaving like a boor – there’s an awful lot who do. Example – I remember trying to get into the lobbies to vote and there was a queue. A man behind me said ‘I’m in a dreadful hurry – but this lady is in the way’. Upon which I turned around and he said – ‘Oh – it’s not a lady – it’s a Lib Dem!’ And roared at his amazing joke! I refrain from revealing his political persuasion.

And it’s funny, you know, my colleague Susan Kramer’s new proposals for families which give men equal rights to time off following birth of baby caused a storm today. I was listening to Nick Ferrari’s program on LBC and the callers who called in after Susan had explained the policy. Part of the proposal is that the man or woman can choose post baby leave up to a year (it’s already that for women) and it is up to the couple to decide who takes how much of that time and when.

The furore and anger at the mere suggestion that men should be entitled to the same rights as women sent listeners into a spin. How could business survive? How dare the Lib Dems be liberal and propose policies that would deliver equal rights? Scandalous!

That’s the real world. That’s the mindset that is out there to some extent – so all I would say is that I hold to my argument that we need both genders in Parliament to make the best decisions. And that other country’s around the world have recognised this in their legislatures – and we lag way behind!

But thanks to all who have commented – feedback (including critical feedback) always welcome – even when you’re wrong!

What we need is a parliament with 100% good politicians that know how to advocate and represent the countries people, whatever their colour, gender, or any other persuasion. The idea that somehow more women in parliament will achieve this just because their women is pretty ridiculous.

the macho game of who’s got the biggest airport or the longest train

Very mature. I hope that you don’t object when people blame poor decisions they think you’ve made on you being “Distracted by your biological clock” because your gender binary based bigotry has left you somewhat exposed to accusations of hypocrisy should you do so.

Indeed, one of the reasons spending on the London bus network has been so high is /because/ of the decision to replace all buses with ones fully accessible to wheelchair users and parents with double buggies, well ahead of the legal deadline for doing so.

If things were still as you claim, then all transport projects would look like the Victoria line, with the focus solely on boosting commuter capacity and throughput with no investment in regeneration, accessibility or focus on benefits for marginalised/minority groups. The Crossrail supporting documents and benefit/cost analysis are about as far away from that approach as you can possibly imagine.