There are numerous different categories, with gongs for politicians, civil servants, those in business and in the media. It really doesn't take too much examination of previous winners to see something might be amiss. For a start, there's not only the inclusion of the objectionable Polly Toynbee, but worse still, gender feminist Sandra Horley actually received two awards in one year! In case you aren't aware, Horley is a director of domestic violence organisation Refuge (read this). She can supposedly spot male abusers just by looking at them, though naturally there's no mention off whether her magical abilities extend to identifying the 40% of abusers of the fairer sex. Refuge of course refuses to help male domestic violence victims, though Horley is at least honest enough to admit the existence of financial incentives which motivate her organisation in constantly downplaying the number of male domestic violence victims. This ridiculous idea of male and female victims competing for funding goes to show the insanity of her view of domestic violence as a gender issue and anyone deliberately ignoring and belittling such a huge proportion of victims shouldn't be receiving awards for anything.
It wasn't until 2009 that the consequences of all this unfairness really came home to roost. Aside from the fact that another gender feminist won an award in the Fawcett Society's Katherine Rake, there were far more scandalous nominees too. Most significantly it emerged that one of only three allowable nominees for MP of the year was none other than Luton South MP Margaret Moran. Ms Moran, the product of a then illegal all women shortlist, was arguably THE face for the expenses scandal. Her ability to milk the system was incredibly impressive. Whilst other MPs were flipping properties and claiming for second homes, she was way ahead of the game and onto her third house!
Moran's indiscretions are so numerous it's quite frankly hard to list them all. In 2005 there were controversies surrounding her using thousands of pounds of taxpayer funds to send unsolicited letters to constituents just before the election. As well as her second and third home expense claims, there's the issue of milage claims amounting to some 26,028 miles, even though she lives 32 miles form Parliament. Moran has supposedly been too ill to attend the Commons for the best part of a year now, yet Channel 4 caught her touting for lobbying work in a sting operation with Moran claiming to have access to a "girl's gang" of MPs who could help a fictions company. She's barred from standing for Labour at the next election, and as a result of the latest lobbying scandal she's even suspended form the Labour party itself! As of April 2nd Moran still hadn't repaid the monies she owes from the expenses scandal.
There are also various controversies surrounding the company "eQuality Networks" with Moran writing lobbing for work on behalf of the company without disclosing her interests in it. She allegedly made interns work for the company instead of doing Parliamentary work, and the organisation falsely claimed to be a registered charity. In fact it was an eQuality Network's employee who nominated Moran for the Women in Public Life Award, hilariously describing her as a "forward thinking, modern day suffragette".
The disgrace that is Moran's nomination has been noted elsewhere (though not in the mainstream media), but if one digs deeper it's clear that the candidates of such an incredibly low moral standing were equally welcome as nominees to Peer of the Year too. As a result, of the three nominations for the very best female Peer, one was reserved for Baroness Polla Uddin. Her alleged expense fraud make every single one of the 300+ accused MPs appear saintly by comparison. Uddin boasts about how long she's lived in East London (staying in tax payer subsidised accommodation) and is seen there daily, yet she's been claiming all the while that her main home in in Maidstone, benefiting to the tune of £180,000 as a result. Uddin even claimed 179 days allowances for 2007/08 which was a greater number of days than the Lords had actually sat! Is someone who milks every last possibly penny from the taxpayer and refuses to cooperate with police investigations really one of the "the great women in public life"? Quite frankly I think you'd struggle to find anyone in the Lords more despicable, and there's certainly no shortage of competition.
Fortunately Moran and Uddin didn't quite manage to win the awards, but some of the actual winners are clearly undeserving of the award. MP of the year Award went to Brent South's Dawn Butler. While her expense claims aren't as impressive as Moran or Uddin, she's hardly the most transparent or competent MP out there. For example last year she famously published a letter of commendation on her website supposedly from Barrack Obama. Strangely the document was riddled with mistakes and written on House of Commons notepaper. It later emerged that it was a creation of one of Butler's members of staff, with Obama merely signing the document. Any "MP of the Year" should at least be able to turn up to meetings, and if she's really as talented as "Obama" suggests then she'd be able to complete most basic aspects of her job requirements too. Worse still, Butler seems to enjoy playing the race card regardless of the evidence and she's even linked to the expenses scandal now due a campaign to smear her main opponent through a fictions expense related complaint.
I don't doubt that some of the awards must at least have undoubtedly gone to reasonably worthy recipients, but segregating awards on gender and then also not actually bothering to award any to men is not only sexist but actually highly demeaning to the truly worthy recipients. It hugely diminishes a person's achievements in exactly the same way all women shortlists tarnish the few decent female MPs elected via such a method. Winners are stigmatised with being elected/nominated solely based their gender, when in reality some could have actually achieved selection on merit. Further still, it's actually incredibly dishonest to tittle an award "MP of the Year" or "Peer of the Year" when every single male politician is ineligible for such an award, especially as the title then gets quoted in the media as if they're somehow the best person in Parliament.
The fact is that the very best politicians and people in public life really aren't as interested in awards as your average above nominee. Truly outstanding politicians are so busy doing fantastic working and dealing with their constituents concerns during every spare moment. As a result they don't have time to go around lobbying for votes for such awards and anyone worthy of a decent award would never dream of doing such a shameful thing anyway.One wonders what wonderful figures will be used this year in order to "highlight the achievements of outstanding women role models amongst us"? Given last year's farce, can I be so bold as to nominate Jacqui Smith for her services to pay per view porn, and Ann Keen (one half of "Mr and Mrs Expenses") for services to airport construction, Other contenders Should include Barbara Follett who managed more in wrongful expense claims than anyone else in Parliament and perhaps Patriccia Hewitt who's seems to be trying to single handily reduce the supposed gender pay gaps through her lobbying activities.
Alternatively we could just stop having sexist awards ceremonies and start to recognise the best people in society regards of how many X chromosomes they have.
by John Kimble
10/10 for 'Original' content, JK. This is proper reporting. I would send it to the editor of the Spectator, were I you. It needs much wider circulation.
Posted by: amfortas | Saturday, 10 April 2010 at 02:10
Thanks, been working on this for a while.
Have a couple of similar exposes planned.
Posted by: John Kimble | Saturday, 10 April 2010 at 02:34