Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Saturday, 22 December 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Passing By

Perhaps you should extend your list to incumbent MPs who were selected by all-women shortlists prior to previous elections.

David Graves-Moore

This piece on the Rights of Men (December 22nd) is absolutely right: it is shameful that Labour has lists from which men are excluded.
Unfortunately the Conservative Party now has its shameful "A List" of candidates which gives preference to women, non-white applicants and homosexuals. There is nothing to choose between the two approaches. Both are intolerable.


I think the Conservative Party has abandoned the A-list now after internal opposition.

David Dryden

Not quite right Oxymoron, you have believed/fell for the Conservative Party spin.

What has happened is that they used the A-List system for key marginal seats up until January 2007. They dropped it after about 85-90% of key marginals had selected from it, leaving those still desperate enough, to scramble around looking for one of the remaining winnables.

This was dropped not because of grassroots pressure (they don't care about the grassroots) but because hundreds of able men were literally walking away from the party. Many already have.

The problem with the A-List was that firstly it was only made up of people favoured by Central Office (huge numbers of Kensington & Chelsea hacks) and secondly that it was 4 times harder for a man to get on the A-list than a woman. The latter was a deliberate policy and a clear cut example of sexual discrimination.

In addition, the A-List still operates for seats where the sitting MP is a Conservative and is standing down. Ann Widdecombe's seat of Maidstone for example, is only selecting from the A-List.

However, since the A-List has been dropped for marginals, it has only been replaced by another insidious form of sexual discrimination against men.

What now happens is that for every round of interviews in a selection, there has to be the same number of men and women at every stage.

For example, if a seat is initially interviewing 12, 6 have to be men and 6 have to be women, no matter if 80% of applicants were men or 80% of the best applicants were men.

This goes on through the rounds, no matter what the performance of the individuals are. For example, in the final it has to be 2 men and 2 women or 1 and 1.

If women do better than men, say the top 4 are all women, then the gender quota would not apply and 4 women go through. Because the quota only applies against men.

This happened in Dewsbury, where because so few applied, 4 men and 2 women were interviewed in the first round. The top 4 who were interviewed were all men and the bottom 2 were women. However, due to the gender quota issue, only the top man went to the final and the top women also did, but she was 5th overall. The man who came 2nd overall did not go to the final and therefore was deliberatly and comprehensively discriminated against because of his gender.

It is also happening with the coming Euro-selections.

If a Conservative MEP is standing down, he or she has to be replaced by a women. No ifs and no buts.

Also if no-one is standing down, then the quota system discussed above kicks in and then the rest of the places are divvied up by gender. It is a hopeless situation for any man wanting to become a Conservative MEP.

There is only really a small difference between this form of disenfranchisement than the one operated by Labour.

All parties want more women MPs but because their approved lists are normally made up of 75% men:25% women, they can only achieve it by blocking men from being candidates.

They cannot find an answer to the fact that less women than men wnat to be MP's so they sexually discriminate against men to achieve their aims.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List