Poor little men
White middle-class male Labour party member (in the comments):
BTW I notice that Hemel Hempstead (majority 499) and the seat I was twinned with at the last election (along with Watford) has been declared All Women Shortlist. :-/ How. Rubbish. Is. That.
Hemel is one of the few marginal seats we don’t hold in the region - and, as I mentioned, one I campaigned in at the last election having been twinned with it. But obviously I am not worthy to be considered for it on the basis of being a man. :-/
Tell you what Lola, why don’t you come and stand here? After all you are female, so are infinitely more qualified than someone like me to contest such a seat. :-/
My heart bleeds for you.
You either believe or you do not that the people who make decisions for us should be broadly representative of the UK population. If you do not, then why are you in a party founded to ensure that working people had a voice at the highest level? Women have been discriminated against and discouraged from entering public life for decades: no wonder just 19.8% of Parliament are women. The only way to change this is positive action to get more women selected and elected. Gentle encouragement just doesn’t work (just ask the Liberal Democrats - so committed to women’s representation that their Gender Task Force will take another forty years to get equal numbers in their parliamentary party, when AWS could do it in half the time). Not when selection committees still ask women what their husbands will do for sex when they’re in London all week, and inquire as to the colour of their underwear. Not when local favoured sons (and it is always sons) get preferential treatment.
Women come in all shapes and sizes, have every type of political opinion and have the full range of experiences and points of view. They are clever and stupid; cunning and naive; great at oratory and terrible public speakers; compassionate and uncaring; mouthy and quiet. Some women would make great MPs. Some wouldn’t. But why on earth would you think that from all the women available in the Labour party, all those talents, all that choice, Hemel Hempsted CLP wouldn’t be able to find one that suited them?
I’m sorry in the specific instance that your aspirations are dashed, but we really don’t have a shortage of white middle-class men in Parliament. It might be worth pondering why it is that equality is always okay as a general aspiration until men (or white people, or straights, or able-bodied people) actually have to do something about it.
Not saying I was against them beforehand, but that post has made me understand AWS in an entirely different light. Good post.
Indeed. We’ve had this argument time and time again in the local party. When women make up 52% of society but only have about 15 council seats out of 61 you have to hold your hands up and say that something has got to be done.
Well said Antonia. Agree entirely. Kerron, try substituting “working-class” for “women” in your comments, remember the purpose and the history of the Labour Party, think about what you are saying, and try again.
Tim.
(White-ish middle-class straight London-resident able-bodied leading-public-school-&-Oxbridge-educated agnostic man, and a proud member of the Labour Party). Christ, all you can say for me is that I don’t work for an MP.
Well, all-women shortlists, positive discrimination for ethnic minorities and the like are all unfair. The entire purpose of such lists is to select a woman or a member of an ethnic minority in cases where the most able candidate is a white man. It’s clearly unfair to white men who want to be Labour MPs, protestants who want to join the NI police and so on.
The justification for this unfairness, of course, is to point out that, historically, it has been difficult for able women to become MPs (say), so parliament is dominated by men. Waiting for all the existing MPs to die, retire or lose elections will take a long time - you can obtain a more even sex ratio by preferring women for your new intake. You then have to argue that the advantages of having a significant fraction of women MPs outweigh the disadvantages of being unfair to male candidates and of having a slightly less able pool of MPs.
There is also an argument that even if the 1000 most able politicians in the country were all men, you would get a better parliament by including some women. That means that some constituencies will have to be forced to act against their own best interests for the greater good.
Sam, your second sentence is the statement of why you don’t understand, and then you appear to see the truth in the first sentence of your final paragraph, then it slips away from you again. The whole point the Labour Party is making through the imposition of all women shortlists (AWS) is that the model you use when you say “most able” is deeply problematic.
Now there is a school of thought that says that it is perfectly possible that a white university-educated man, born in the UK, with no kids - can adequately represent a single mother from Somalia with three kids.
I don’t dispute that argument, actually: as a rationalist I accept is as entirely. It’s just that as an empiricist as well I have to enter a caveat, as follows: it is perfectly possible, it’s just that like many things which are possible (people inadvertently strangling themselves with shoelaces, for example) it doesn’t, as a matter of fact, happen very often.
In the nineteenth century there was a party that said it would speak for working class men (and in those days women didn’t have the vote, so it was men), but which consisted of middle-class people. Very able, they all were, mostly expensively educated in Latin and Greek and worth a small fortune. However, that party was not always great at pushing for the rights of working-class men, what with not actually understanding their problems very well and not suffering when provision for working class men was inadequate.
These faults sprung in large part from the fact that that Party - the Liberal Party - was not in fact composed of working-class men but of people who wanted a political career and wanted the votes of working-class men.
The Labour Party was set up to provide a real voice in parliament for ordinary working people. Its members might not all have Double Firsts from Oxford or fifteen years experience working in an MP’s office or running a complex family business, but they were from the background that most working people in Britain were from and they worked harder than Liberal MPs had ever fought for those communities who had been deprived of power since forever.
To me the Labour Party at its best is about remembering and re-analysing that experience again and again. Who in our society os the most downtrodden, the least well looked-after by the manner in which society operates? Again and again, those are the people we should be looking to as the future of the Labour Party, those are the people who need to be made elected representatives to secure a political system where we seek always to redistribute power to those who have least of it and best understand the impact that lack of power has on their families, their communities, their peoples and their class. The great American socialist Eugene Debs put this belief beautifully as he was sent to jail the best part of 80 years ago “Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”
On this basis then, “ability” is a chimaera. MPs are always likely to be - and in the interests of doing their job well probably need to be - brighter, more motivated, quicker-thinking and more politically astute than the average voter or elector. But none of these attributes are believed to be correlated strongly with class background, race, sex, or sexuality, for example, and the idea of an “able” “well-qualified candidate” - usally someone who has done little else but work for an MP and hold a minor office in a trade union or Co-op is problematic, because it rejects a central part of the socialist analysis - class - implicit in what Debs said, and how he identified people as sets suffering similar oppression rather than named individuals.
Working class black women, for example, are not oppressed at random. They are oppressed triply, for belonging to the working class, for being black, and for being women. These oppressions are meted out to whole groups of people on the basis of their (socio-economic) class, race, and sex; or if you prefer, three separate dimensions of the oppression of a class of people without regard to individual ‘merit’ or ability. Carrying on the analysis of the fathers of the Labour Party means we should be trying to get working-class black women into parliament, not nice young white men who would make lovely son-in-laws and are ever so well qualified you know. I am actually in favour of all-ethnic-minority-shortlists and all-ethnic-minority-women shortlists (the proportion of these last should be greater than the product of the proportions otherwise of all-women and all-ethnic-minority shortlists, to reflect the multiple oppression point).
As my post above notes, I am not someone who will benefit in any personal or political way from the application of my arguments. I had an extremely privileged upbringing and I want everyone to have the same set of chances as I had. I nonetheless know that my becoming an MP is relatively unlikely to be the best way that that position can be advanced, and because I long ago decided it was more important to be ambitious for one’s ideas than one’s self, I am not only quite happy with that but immensely, immensely proud that the Labiour Party didn’t just introduce AWS, it also introduced special legislation to prevent them being judged illegal by bitter and twisted little men, who put a court case to further their ambitions before other uses for the Labour Party’s money.
I am, on a not unrelated note, also exceptionally proud to have been the internal selection agent (only nominally, she knew what she was doing) for a young woman who in 2004 secured the nomination of a CLP far from where she lived to become their Parliamentary candidate. It was an open shortlist, and frankly, I can’t claim to have been very impressed by the men on it. The young woman in question won when the only other serious contender (another young woman) withdrew having won another seat. Neither won: but for them to move onwards from the cheerful impotence of PPC-dom in an unwinnable seat to actually becoming Members of Parliament will be very very much more difficult without AWS, and I am immensely glad the Party hasn’t binned it yet.
Sorry, post far too long.
Ms Bance fails to grasp that promoting lesbianism and alternative lifestyles,noble as it is, is not going to enthuse the majority of working class former or current Labour voters to carry on voting for us or to push leafelts through doors etc.
A great many loyal labour people,especially from the older generations, would not identify one iota with the kind of guardian trendy stuff Ms Bance spouts.
In order to win a fourth term we need to address their concerns and not isolate them with guardian inspired cack.
Was a bit taken aback when you posted that entry, as I am a mate of Kerron’s and can see exactly where he was coming from, although likewise I can see your point as well.
Put basically, the problem for those of us who are against all-women shortlists (and it’s not just white middle class males who find them irritating) is that it limitsa no of options available. I was much involved in the selection for the constituency I live in before the last election and there were two women out of the list of eleven. Now one of the women was very good and deserved to be in the top four (which she was), whereas I was not so happy with the other one and yet she got shortlisted over better candidates purely on the grounds of her sex.
As it was, the candidacy went to neither of them but it did confirmed to me the snags of all women shortlists. I totally agree that there is sexism in our society, that we need to consistently challenge the appalling way women are treated, but, as I mentioned in a long argument on my blog with Lola on this issue, I don’t think this is the way to go about it. I can understand and empathise with the arguments in favour, but…
That said, those of us who are opposed, recognise that it is Party policy, accept that it is party policy and go along with it for the sake of not wanting to cause upset. But that doesn’t mean to say we have to agree it or like it.
Antonia, I’ve just plugged this post on the new Let’s talk Labour site which is designed to make sure the best Labour blog posts or news stories get read by more people.
http://labourparty.crispynews.com
Sam, if the most “able” candidate was always selected then there would be no need for all-women shortlists because Parliament would already be fully representative. Do you seriously believe that the only reason there were only about 6 women in parliament pre-97 is because they couldn’t find any more who were as able as the 700 men?
And as for having a slightly less able Parliament as a result, look at the 1997 intake. Of the new MPs elected that year, more women than men (in real terms, not proportionally) have ended up in government. So it looks more like the women who are there are more able, not less. Which is obvious when you think about it - because it’s harder for women they are self-selecting.
And Paul, there is no parliament in the world which has achieved parity or near-parity of representation without legislation. I think that the situation you’re describing wasn’t an AWS anyway?
It wasn’t but it was near enough!
I just wonder where all this will go. I know some in favour of AWS who say that they look forward to a time when it won’t be needed as there would be equality, but if that happens there will be an almighty row. Once you start something, it can be difficult to stop unless you know exactly how things will progress.
Paul: at least one woman has to be on every shortlist for open seats. That’s because women have traditionally not made it onto shortlists where the method of getting on was to get nominated by branches and trade union affiliates, by trawling round evening meetings and having pints in the pub. And you may have come across one crap female wannabe PPC in your time: lucky you, I’ve met a few more than that. I’ve also met a few crap male wannabe PPCs and - shock horror! - MPs. The point about AWS is not about getting crap women into parliament: it’s about getting women into parliament. We’ve already established that women have a range of competences and experiences. I do not believe that any CLP could not find a competent woman who suits their constituency from the thirty or so that apply for each AWS seat.
Also, when we have 50% women in parliament, I’ll support the Labour Party getting rid of AWS. Unfortunately that won’t happen for a while - twenty years for 50-50 in the PLP, over 400 for parliament as a whole is the latest estimate - but AWS will be gone sooner. The legislation providing for it had a sunset clause, and the next general election is likely to be last for which it is legal. Do tell Kerron, I’m sure he’ll be pleased that he only has to miss out on his birthright for one more election.
The only thing that will get more women to stand for parliament is if they look at the green benches and can identify with a fair proportion of the people on them, which calls for intervention to break the cycle. I find this quite interesting at the moment as I’m trying to get young people involved locally, and the same principle applies - while the local CLP and the district/county councils look like a gathering of the village elders, young people won’t try to infiltrate. Not because they aren’t interested in having their say, but because they can gain fulfilment in other arenas that they identify with and are more comfortable with .
Bance, you are very good at this, far better than I am - I think I have run out of steam after having this argument too many times. Sometimes with people who are interested in a genuine debate and sometimes with people who are not, which is insanely frustrating.
I think the difficulty in this instance is looking at it on a micro level - yes, there are going to be times when men don’t get selected for a seat they want becuase of an AWS. Yes, sometimes that’s going to be difficult for them and their supporters to deal with, and I can understand that.
However, some issues need to be looked at primarily on a macro level, and this is really one of them. Ultimately if we are committed to increasing the proportion of Labour MPs who are women, then the natural consequence of that is that the proportion of Labour MPs who are men has to decrease - and yes, that means that some men who might have become MPs won’t. And on an individual basis I am sympathethetic to how that might feel, but we don’t make policy based on individual people’s feelings.
“Do you seriously believe that the only reason there were only about 6 women in parliament pre-97 is because they couldn’t find any more who were as able as the 700 men?”
You are so right, Catherine. The barriers to women becoming MPs are many and complex, and whilst some non-AWS measures (like training for candidates and selection panels, support networks etc etc) will help in breaking down some of those barriers, they’re not going to deal with the fact that whilst politics is visibily still a male game it makes potential women candiates think politics is not for them and it clearly subliminally influences those selecting candidates (male and female). Only getting more women into Parliament will change that - it’s a means to an end, not an end in itself, I cannot say that enough times!
“Sam, if the most “able” candidate was always selected then there would be no need for all-women shortlists because Parliament would already be fully representative. Do you seriously believe that the only reason there were only about 6 women in parliament pre-97 is because they couldn’t find any more who were as able as the 700 men?”
Either you didn’t read what I wrote carefully, or I wasn’t sufficiently clear. You will note that I said “historically, it has been difficult for able women to become MPs (say), so parliament is dominated by men.” Obviously I am aware, as is anyone with even part of a brain, that a large number of our MPs were selected in a process that strongly disadvantaged women, for a number of reasons, some of which Antonia mentions.
Tim Waters: I think I do understand, but perhaps I was too concise in my post. Let me see if I can make myself plainer:
A constituency will select the candidate that it thinks will best represent it in parliament. Doubtless in some cases, the constituency party will be dominated by sexists, racists or other unpleasant characters, but let’s assume for the moment that we just have rational people. It is in the interests of the constituency to select the candidate that is most able to represent it. I didn’t mean to imply that this ability is some kind of global constant - the candidate most able to represent an inner city constituency is probably not the same as the best candidate for a rural farming constituency.
In principle, one can rank those willing to stand as a candidate for each constituency in order of suitability. On average, given that there isn’t much in the way of correlation between the ability of a person to do a good job as a politician and his sex, ethnicity, sexuality or religion, one would expect the preferred candidates to reflect the distribution of those factors in the constituencies (assuming that people of different sexes, ethnicities and so on are equally willing to become MPs). For example, something like 7% of the UK population identify themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority. If we had to replace the complete House of Commons tomorrow, we would expect about 45 ethnic minority MPs (this number changes a litte depending on how you distribute ethnic minorities in constituencies, but isn’t too far off), and shouldn’t be unduly surprised if the number turned out to be anything between about 30 and 60.
When all-women shortlists are imposed, and the best candidate is a woman anyway, there has been no effect (at least at this point. It’s possible that all-women shortlists encourage more women to put themselves forward as prospective candidates.) When an all-women shortlist is imposed on a constituency whose preferred candidate was a man, it is “unfair” both to the man in question and to the constituency. The man finds himself passed over in favour of a less suitable candidate because of her sex, and the constituency finds itself with a (probably only slightly) less able representative in parliament.
These things are undeniably unfair to the individual candidate and constituency concerned.
There is a good argument for being unfair in this case, because it will provide you with a parliament which has more diverse experience and is more representative of the people, and so stronger. That justifies the unfairness, but it would be quite wrong to pretend that the unfairness doesn’t exist.
Sam, I didn’t misunderstand anything and you’ve repeated exactly the same thing above. You’re making the assumption that if a CLP prefers a man over a woman, it is because he is the most suitable and, (in your words) probably slightly more able, ergo it is unfair. In fact, candidates are selected for many reasons, of which ability is only one, and the odds have been stacked against women regardless of their ability. Presumably CLPs have always selected the most suitable candidate, including before AWS - do you get my point…?
Even if it is true that AWS encourages more women to come forward, they are still coming forward in lower numbers than men. So say women candidates represent the top 2% of the female population, whereas men represent the top 5% - with a much more mixed range of ability. It’s only an assumption, but one that is borne out by the comparative career achievements of the male and female intake of 1997. You have to be pretty damn good to make it into parliament as a man - as a woman you have to be bloody damn good!
If you think it is acceptable that women make up 52% of society but only hold between 14 and 20% of parliamentary seats then carry on opposing all womens shortlists.
I agree with Antonia and others about this, but have one mildly provocative point. One thing which worries me is that the social and professional background of MPs doesn’t, in any way, reflect the wider population. Lawyers (mostly men), for instance are massively over represented, whereas care workers, teaching assistants and cleaners (most of whom are women) are underrepresented.
This isn’t going to change if left to gentle encouragement. I dunno how it would work in practice, but I like the idea of shortlists which excluded people from professional and social backgrounds which are already over represented in parliament. It would be no bad thing, if nothing else, for ambitious people who want to represent the Labour Party to go and work alongside our supporters, rather than going to work for an MP.
Take care
Dan xxx
I was and am a strong supporter of AWS. But I think we should also recognise the one way in which they have failed - they have become a blockage on getting more black people (or, to be fair, more black men) into parliament. I don’t think a black woman has been selected once through an AWS and it is undoubtedly the case that AWS has stopped a few black men with pretty good chances from being selected.
Years and years ago, there was a byelection in Kensington. In previous GE (87) Labour had stood a black man and this time the CLP selected a white woman. Her response to the question about whether it was unfair to have a white person to replace a black person was to say women’s representation in parliament was worse than that of black people. Is that still the case?
Adrian - I’m not sure better/worse is useful. Both the representation of black people (1.9% against a national average of 8%) and women (18.9% against 51%) is dreadful. I support having BME-only shortlists. I am, though, really cross with those people who use this argument against women-only shortlists - how is it useful to start setting one group against another? Let’s get on with BME shortlists, and have some that are both AWS and ABMES, so that we change the dreadful fact that there are currently only two and have ever been only three black women MPs. (Diane Abbot, Oona King, Dawn Butler)
Of course we wouldn’t need AWS (or any other discrimination) if we had a decent electoral system.
Countries with PR have a much more representative parliament, look at Scandanavia, Scotland, Wales etc.
I am all in favour of AWS (until we change the present electoral system), but what about the under representation of the working class/non-public school/ethnic and minor party candidates, etc? This is even worse than the under representation of women. Short of having short lists for every under-represented group (which is impossible), only PR will give the people fair representation.
The problem with AWS is it sometimes replaces working class male candidates (very unrepresented) with middle class women candidates (not so under-represented). Saying that, it is better than nothing.
Maybe I was a bit strong earlier, and in fact I do feel guilty about holding such views, in that I feel that I am being judged as sexist when I dislike sexism, but my bottom line on this issue is that I wonder if this is fighting fire with fire!
I suppose also, if I am being uncomfortably honest with myself, let alone anyone else! The thought of not being able to apply for a seat that I have knowledge and experience of etc.. for the simple reason that I am not a woman is somewhat painful. But then it does give you an insight to how it has been for women when they fight blatant sexism.
That said, Labour is a broad church and I just don’t feel that this is an issue to get into an argument with. As I said before, I accept the ruling as it were, whatever my personal opinions, and there are other ideological debates within the Party which I would be far more willing to argue over.
As it is, I have the uncomfortable feeling I ruffled a few feathers. If that is the case, then I sincerely apologise and if I appeared difficult it might well have been that I rushed to the defence of a Labour colleague, namely Kerron, who is also a personal friend, and who I have found to be generous and helpful in the past few years.
BME shortlists? So what ME is included and what is excluded and why?
And, although I support electoral reform the argument that it produces more women representatives is guff. Look at Ireland. What produced more women in the Scottish and Welsh legislatures was one or other vesrion of AWS. It was nothing much to do with the electoral system.
Of course Ireland doesn’t strictly have PR, it has the single transferable vote (STV) which can have some of the drawbacks of FPTP. Saying that, it still has much more women than most of the EU parliaments.
You are right that Scotland and Wales have the advantage of AWS ‘AND’ PR, which is why they have the most female representaion in their parliaments of anywhere in the world. Also being new parliaments they don’t have top overcome the inertia of built up problems. You can’t overlook the increase in female representation that has happened in places like NZ where they have moved from FPTP to PR, even if you put Scandanavian better representation down to more progressive societies (which again is linked to PR run countries) see this harvard study.
The systems in Scotland and Wales are much less proportional than STV. Then again you say Ireland has a better record than most EUn parliaments when most EU parliaments use some sort of proportional system. Your argument is so full of holes I wonder why you bother. There are plenty of pro-electoral reform arguments without using this one.
I’d still like an answer on my BME question by the way
On average, PR returns women candidates at a proportion of 20%, compared to 10% for all other systems. Still nowhere near representative, and even if it was, I wouldn’t be prepared to take the negatives of PR just for the side effect of getting more women in.
Glad that a throw-away comment on the comments section of my site has proved so inspirational for this debate.
I don’t intend to spend a great deal of time responding to the individual points - but I don’t think you have fairly precised my position.
I don’t believe in Positive Discrimination BECAUSE I believe in equal rights. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to see more women in Parliament - in fact I actively promote that - however I suggest that shipping in candidates from other areas is not the best way to win over voters in marginal seats.
We should be encouraging women locally to stand and be the best candidates. Not choosing people just because of their sex, colour or sexual orientation.
I like the underlying suggestion that somehow I am some white middle class (possibly Blairite) gravy-trainer. It shows a severe lacking of me, where I come from and my beliefs.
And also how much work I do in my local community. The reason I want to represent people is to make a difference to them - not me - but thank you for suggesting otherwise to fit your stereotype.
Kerron, just encouraging people to stand doesn’t work, and we have a history of passing over women who were, in fact, the best candidates. Read the Hansard Society’s reports on it http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/assets/Women_at_the_Top_Final_Report_-_amended_biblio.pdf
But I completely agree that where you have an AWS, local candidates should be prioritised.
Kerron, what part of “I’m sorry in the specific instance that your aspirations are dashed”, which appears in the main body of the post, do you not understand? I don’t know you, and don’t care particularly about you; a couple of comments of yours really riled me, and I picked up on them, which you didn’t like. However, the point remains that you are a middle-class* white man, nonwithstanding any other talents or faults you may have, and we’ve got quite enough of them in parliament already.
*university-educated, works as an assistant to an MP - yep, probably middle-class.
Interesting tangent this is starting go off on. Can you change what your class is? Like me, Kerron’s background is working class but current job and salary would be middle class. What is more important - upbringing or current status?
When I watch PMQs what do I see? Row after row of middle-aged, white men. Women make up less than a fifth of the House of Commons and I think we all know why: Westminster’s an ‘old boy’s club’; partly through sexism and partly through the whole ‘who you know not what you know’ culture.
We should be the party of equal opportunity but when we don’t even allow a level playing field for our own members to progress within the party then who are we to dictate to society how it should act in this respect? Simply put, we cannot.
But then I’m a middle-class, white man so I would think that wouldn’t I?
Keep up the good work, there are a large number of men in the party who support the use of all-women shortlists to increase female representation (whether in parliament, devolved bodies or councils across the country).
Again the End justifies the Means argument. And that this blantant discrimination is the ONLY way to get a properly representative parliament fallacy. And if you are against AWS then you must be against having a properly representative parliament illogical statement.
Because AWS is probably the FASTEST method (athough I suggest a faster method below) to get a properly represenative doesn’t mean it is the best way if you believe in EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES - be you white, black, old, young, male or female.
If you believe the end justifies the means - then why not force sitting male MPs to all resign and impose AWS on all political parties by law to ensure 50% of all seats are held by women. This would ensure a local man may not be able to stand in his own seat. But still - who care about fairness.
I must start this comment with a statement: I’m a middle-class, married, straight, professional, strongly Blairite, former Tory-voting, 31-year-old white man. May as well be up front about it.
I started reading this post with the strong view that AWS were wholly wrong, and Kerron’s view was broadly mine. In a nutshell, my view was: people dislike discrimination, so they’d like instead to discriminate.
It’s the pro-death penalty argument - it’s wrong to kill, so we’ll kill you.
However, I’m taken by the strength of feeling for AWS, and the compelling argument that Ms Bance puts forward - how can a Parliament represent a people when it doesn’t (as a matter of fact) represent the people.
I wonder then why the policy isn’t taken to its logical conclusion. I agree with GaffaUK to an extent - in order to redress the balance, why aren’t all shortlists solely for (in shorthand) non-”me” candidates?
The Party could set ‘representative’ targets (on, say, gender, sexuality, ethnicity), and until they were filled, literally *no* other candidate like me could be selected for a seat.
Why not?
In the meantime also, let’s ensure that 51% (rounded down to 50%) of the leadership positions are female. Let’s devise a simple voting system whereby one of the two top Labour Party positions *has* to be filled by a woman.
I’m serious. Let’s stop “me” candidates until the balance is properly redressed, and let’s sort it out now, rather than wait 20 years.
And I’m really sorry Ed Balls, or any other highly capable male currently without a seat (another is my friend Paul Blanchard, a PPC at the 2005 election and a York Labour councillor) - we’ll just wait until the demographics have been repaired before contemplating electing the right “man” for the job.