The Labour Party in NE Derbyshire have just selected their candidate to stand at the next general election. It was a women only shortlist. How do you all feel about this? Do women really need allowances like this making for them?

Personally I have a problem with the idea. If a woman can't stand her corner against the male competition then should she really be a representative of the people. Lets face it some men will always say that women chosen in this way aren't up to the job.

There is plenty of opportunity in modern politics for women to be as involved as much as they want to be if they choose to take a back seat then whose fault is that?

There speaks someone who knows nothing about the subject

Let me give you a few facts

In the 1992 election, of all of the 650 odd MPs elected, there were more MPs called John than there were women at all

In the 1997 election there were about errr......130 women elected out of 650 and 101 of them were Labour

In the 2001 election the number of women elected fell as some of the women previously elected retired and were replaced by men again

In both elections the public voted more for the women candidates than they did the for the male candidates, but sadly the women were more unlikely to be chosen to stand as candidates for the party(ies) that were highly likely to win.

Perhaps that last point wasnt clear enough, let me restate it.

Imagine you live somewhere that has only ever had a Labour MP or Tory MP. Imagine that you are a political party that is NOT that party. You choose a woman because you can afford to, being sexist, presuming that she wont win. And she doesnt. You can say you have put up women, you can even say that they have done better than the bloke you put up last time, but you can rest on your sexist laurels, safe in the knowledge that even doing a bit better wont actually let her WIN

And you call that "letting the best man win"?

Well, yes, you probably do, and I probably would do too.

Because the whole system is geared to letting men win

Think about it, more MPs called John than the total of the women

Is that because women are crap?

Do you really believe that women are crap?

Is that because women do not put themselves forward perhaps?

Not if I tell you that there are always hundreds and hundreds of women on all of the parties' lists. The sad fact is that although the VOTERS prefer women on average, party members who choose the candidates, tend to prefer men

Now you tell me that is right and I will kiss your ass, personally.

All women shortlists, which might, on a good day, make sure that 10 more women get selected, 10 more out of 650 than might have done otherwise (and that is selected, not elected necessarily) is a bad thing and I say GET WITH THE PROGRAMME!!!!!!

I am sick to death of white middle class middle aged blokes thinking they have the monopoly on being MPs

It makes me RETCH

Hope I made myself clear

But when Women MP's "go postal" (to coin an american phrase), they go on a larger scale bringing lots of others with them ;)

Look at Claire Short for instance :P or Edwina Currie to a lesser extent

I am sorry RPG, I really wish you well and all that, but I have no ****ing idea what you are on about (my asterisks)

I'll explain myself a bit then ;)

I guess its due to the actual people who draw up the shortlists confidence in past female MP's, as they do seem to cause so much upset and bad blood within the party's, fair enough thers been a heck of a lot of women MPs who are far better than their male counterparts, but as in most things the minority tend to spoil it for the majority

Originally posted by Mo
There is plenty of opportunity in modern politics for women to be as involved as much as they want to be if they choose to take
a back seat then whose fault is that?

There is every danger, every danger of this becoming a Belle post against the world

I do realise that

But frankly

WHAT A PILE OF CRAP this is

Give me proof

I have spent 10 years studying this, writing papers about it, interviewing women and men about this, talking to leading figures about this, being interviewed on the radio about this....shall I go on?

AND THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL to suggest that women have the same opportunities as men and EVERYTHING to suggest that they are passed over for white middle class middle aged men

I can give you so many FACTS that you will fall asleep under the weight of them

But I give you again the basics

Women who ARE selected do better than men in terms of facing the public vote

However the three main political parties in this country STILL tend to choose men over women to stand for them at the polls

They would rather have men like Boris Johnson than a smart woman

Because party politics in this country is RIFE with sexism

And if you havent been at a party political selection meeting and heard the crap that is spoken, you simply cannot know how bad it is.

Last election 2001, the Labour Party, which is at the universally acknowledged forefront of trying to get more women into Parliament, did away with all women shortlists, having tried it for the first time in 1997. Less than 7 women were chosen to stand for Labour in seats where the MP was retiring. I forget how many MPs were retiring but it was tens and tens.

This time they have gone back to all women shortlists in about 10 or 15 seats

OUT OF 650 odd

Tell me why that is unfair

All the usual white middle aged middle class blokes can still put themselves forward to stand in the other 630 odd seats

JEEZE

Wound up? me? Biting? me?

YOU BET I AM

Grrrrrrrrr

again

I don't think it is a good thing - it is an example of positive discrimination. In trying to be Politically Correct and not be prejudiced, they're actually being prejudiced towards men who would like to be candidates, and giving the voter less choice, which is not democratic. Candidates should be selected on the basis of merit, and not because of their gender, race or religion.

Shaking head in disbelief. t020 did you even bother to read Belle's posts?

Women will never have the chances they need to progress in politics as sexism is rife in the local parties. It is not a party political thing it is a middle aged men, irrespective of colour (however, Belle may re-educate me on this), thing. It happens in politics and in trade unions to my knowledge.

I too have been to many selection meetings where without a doubt a woman has been the best candidate, on paper, after verbal presentations and after question and answer sessions, but invariably, when a ballot has been held, a man has emerged victorious. Don't ask me why, I'm white and middle-aged and a man and I can't explain why other people are so mis-guided.

Certain homophobic, racist parties have been known to pick either a gay or black man rather than a woman, that speaks volumes about people's attitudes.

It is nothing to do with being politically correct or trying to avoid being predjudiced, we need to get a fair balance between men and women in public life and if the only way to achieve it is to hit the people responsible for giving women the opportunities over the head with wet kippers then so be it.

Originally posted by Belle
There speaks someone who knows nothing about the subject

It makes me RETCH

Hope I made myself clear

Your rudeness and arrogance knows no bounds Belle. I reckon I could probably teach you Miss Know It All, a thing or two about the local political scene. Get this, I know very much what I'm talking about. I was a member of the Labour Party in Sheffield for 25 years and a very active one at that.

You are a shining example of todays Labour Party. Is there any wonder that members are leaving in their droves.

Don't worry I have no intention of leaving this thread but am too busy to answer in depth at this moment. I will be back.

Yes, sorry about that, I apologise wholeheartedly for my tone

It was your views I was objecting to, not you personally

Views I have heard reflected many times over but which make me as mad as hell, as you will have gathered.

As I said, I have studied this, written about it, been paid to manage it, organise it. I have joined the Fawcett Society, worked with the Labour Women's Network and Emily's List etc

You can argue with me, as many have done, but you wont teach me something I didnt already know, not on this subject.

And my experience informs me that women rarely get selected without some external interference or some positive action.

My final point before I leave this topic, having already said everything there is to say on this subject - We have had all-male shortlists for over 200 years, nobody ever objected to those

The major problem with having all-female lists is that it ALLOWS people to say, "She only got elected because she was a woman", and, invariably, an all female list will not include ALL the best candidates.

And I fail to see how forcing local Labour Party members to choose all women lists will tackle endemic sexism.

And no doubt they'll all start bitching about their work-life balance sooner or later

Originally posted by Abdul
And no doubt they'll all start bitching about their work-life balance sooner or later
Well that's a really balanced response isn't it? I bitch about my work-life balance as no doubt you do Abdul but nobody suggests we do so because of our sex.

Originally posted by Abdul
And no doubt they'll all start bitching about their work-life balance sooner or later

Sorry, mate, but I really hope that's a "jokey" post.

Nee naw nee naw

Here come the Internet police :rolleyes:

OK, it was a half-joke, OK?

Because women are more likely to care for children, it may be more difficult for them to juggle work with parental responsibilities.

Or am I being a sexist pig again?

Perhaps if I suggested your misogyny was perhaps culturally-related, you might understand...

Please feel free to tell...it's a slow morning

You know what I mean!!

Just as it would be daft for me to make obscene generalisations based on your ethnicity, it is similarly obscene to do the same based on someone's gender.

Fair point - Although as I've spent all my life in England, I find any comment about ethnic or cultural generalisation inferred to by my postings very strange indeed!

Originally posted by max
Shaking head in disbelief. t020 did you even bother to read Belle's posts?




Yes.... and? I put forwards my opinion, which wasn't changed by Belles post.

Let the bloody sad middle aged men be MPs if its what they want - I as a woman wouldnt want to be one anyway i couldnt think of a worse job.

And please dont talk about kissing bums as the thought repulses me.

Originally posted by Belle
Yes, sorry about that, I apologise wholeheartedly for my tone


I forgive your outrageous outburst Belle (it being the season of goodwill and all that)
;)

I agree with you that women are under represented in Parliament but aren't they also in most other jobs at senior levels? Do you therefore advocate women only shortlists for the appointment of judges, hospital consultants, barristers etc etc. I doubt it,as it would be illegal for one thing.

While we're at it, homosexuals,disabled and people with ginger hair are also under represented, so shall we have special short-lists for them. Sounds ridiculous but thats exactly what your proposal amounts to. It just wouldn't work.

Instead of imposing candidates from above as all women short-lists does, we should be addressing why womwn are not joining political parties. More women members = more women votes=greater influence on choice of candidate.

Are too few women participating in politics because of domestic committments as in most cases the woman is the main carer or could it just be that women find the clap trap/back stabbing/two facedness of politics off putting?

Amended for spelling