2/5/2005
Tory Women Rebel Against All Women Shortlists
As Peter Cuthbertson at Conservative Commentary pointed out, the UK’s Tories, like the US Democrats are paying too much attention to the unrepresentative opinions of the media elite.
Well, the party leadership may be, but outside of the obnoxious harpie tendency, one manifestation of this effect - the drive for all-women shortlists - is not at all popular with female candidates themselves, who would much rather be judged and valued on their own merits.
A group of female potential Conservative candidates have sought to reverse this politically-correct trend.
From Today’s Daily Telegraph.
Sir – We believe that any woman who allows herself to be put on an imposed all-woman shortlist – as is the case in the Calder Valley constituency as of today – cannot credibly call herself a Conservative.
Meritocracy is one of the principles of Conservatism. How can we Conservatives persuade the electorate that we believe in freedom, devolving power to the lowest possible level and opposing political correctness, when the party runs its own internal affairs in exactly the opposite way?
Anyone who wants the Conservative Party to continue to mean something in the future needs vigorously to oppose these plans.
As women who have been involved with many different selection processes in different parts of the country, we think there is a far simpler way to increase the percentage of Conservative women MPs, as some seem so keen to do.
That is for Andrew Mackay MP, and any other politically correct male MPs who agree with the idea of all-women shortlists, to stand down and ask that a woman be selected in their place, instead of imposing this anti-Conservative burden on others.
Jacqui Burns, Conservative candidate, Gateshead E and Washington W, 1997
Carey Schofield, Member of approved list of Conservative candidates
Teresa Hurst, Deputy area chairman, Merseyside
Alma McGing, Chairman, Liverpool Riverside constituency
Laura Midgley, Co-founder of Campaign, Against Political Correctness
Pauline McCormick, Councillor, Reedley ward, Pendle
Samantha Davies, Councillor, Turnham Green ward, Hounslow
Nancy Ashcroft, Councillor, Windle ward, St Helens
Jan Jones, Former chairman, Tewkesbury constituency
Sue Nuttall, Member, Yorkshire
Ann Davies, Former deputy chairman, Leigh constituency
Belinda Hope, Executive Council, Tewkesbury constituency
If the Conservative Party wants to be taken seriously by those people who believe in freedom, it should listen to these women who have put principle above their own immediate interest.
8 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Not sure I really agree with the assumption behind this post. The Conservative Party is an independent association. It is not part of the state and as such is entirely free to organise itself as it wishes. I do not see how anyone who believes in the principle of liberty could suggest otherwise.
As it is, it has chosen to have all women short-lists. Having been involved with the Conservative on and off for the best part of twenty years, right through from having “Fucking Tory Wanker !” shouted at me in the 80s to the looks of pity I get now, I can see why they have done it. The average member of a Conservative Party is both very old and very reactionary There may be some sympathy for economic liberalism, though tinged with a liking for protectionism, but pretty much no sympathy for social liberalism at all.
There is of course nothing wrong with this per se, members of an association can have whatever views they choose, but the upshot of it is that in many cases they select Parliamentary candidates in their own image and reflecting their own views. And that is the problem, the sort of person that gets selected tends to be reactionary and ageing (If he is not ageing years he will be in views) and so does not get elected.
Of course I’m not saying that every candidate is like this, but a lot are. If you dont believe me think about the number of women and gays who have been reported as having difficulties with their association in recent months, and think of the sort of person who makes up the Parliamentary party at the moment. Also think about the sort of policies the party is coming out with now. Identity cards, iimmigrationcontrols, only negligible tax cuts etc etc
Some people within the party have tried to get round the problem by proposing all women short-lists. This strikes me as being sensible, although probably not sufficient; but the more it does to widen its level of support the better. The current “boys club” approach is clearly not working either in terms of congenial policies or electoral success.
Comment by Christopher Price — 2/5/2005 @ 5:29 pm
It is possible to believe in people having the freedom to do something without necessarily approving of it. If a Party wants to introduce all women shortlists, all gay shortlists or all white shortlists for that matter, they are private organisations and I would not use the state to legislate against that. Nevertheless, political parties put themselves forward to exercise political power over the rest of us and the way they conduct their internal affairs gives some clue as to how they might behave in power. It also gives an indication of what they consider important in a candidate and of what values they are likely to exercise.
The women who wrote the letter certainly felt that they were devalued as individuals by the very idea that this discrimination in favour of women is necessary. It implies that women are not able to get selected without it.
Comment by Wolfie — 2/8/2005 @ 7:03 pm
Wolfie - yes it does imply that women cant, or at least have considerable difficulty in, getting selecting as Tory candidates. That was my point. Constituency Associations select candidates, far too many of them select candidates in their own image and as a result far too many unpleasant old reactionaries get selected. All women lists are not a complete sollution to the problem, but they are a start.
Comment by Christopher Price — 2/9/2005 @ 8:37 am
Who gets selected for political party positions doesn’t have much to do with “merit.” So the shortlist doesn’t make the process less meritocratic.
Comment by Libertarian Girl — 2/9/2005 @ 4:31 pm
Christopher - my main intention in this is not to deny that there is irrational discrimination in party political selections - sure there is. I understand it is present in all parties. This is just not the right way to tackle it.
Libertarian Girl - To an extent I agree. How well can any comittee get to know a candidate in a twenty minute interview process? But to the extent that a shortlist introduces gender as a selection criteria, it sure does make it less meritocratic.
I have a number of female friends who have gone for selection as political candidates. Some have been successful, some haven’t - it is a difficult process. I also know men who have not been selected. Of those women who have been selected, I would hate for there to always be a question mark over whether they would really have got there without special treatment. They are worth more than that.
In fact my friends tell me that the worst prejudice is from other women (usually of a certain age) on the selection committees. If it was down to me I would make it compulsory for all members of selection panels to participate in a training course that would make clear the criteria which are relevant in selecting a candidate and those which are not.
Gender should be the last thing in their consideration. All-women shortlists makes it the first.
Comment by Wolfie — 2/9/2005 @ 11:00 pm
Sorry, but I don’t think so!! oem software
Comment by OEM Software Store — 5/23/2005 @ 6:02 am
Sorry, but I don’t think so!! buy oem software
Comment by OEM Software Store — 5/23/2005 @ 6:09 am
Sorry, but I don’t think so!! cheap software
Comment by OEM Software Store — 5/23/2005 @ 4:26 pm