The Rights Of Man

ALL WOMEN SHORTLISTS UPDATE: ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, ANTI-EQUALITY, MISANDRIC AND LABOUR HYPOCRISY

One of the most invidious things about the discriminatory onslaught that men in the UK have to face is the introduction of all-women shortlists, quotas and special training sessions that female wannabe politicians receive, while their male equivalents do not.

In addition, it is an issue that still baffles me that apart from this site, no one else in the men’s equality movement seems remotely interested in, despite the fact that it means men are banned (in Labour's case) from standing for Parliament solely because they are men and also that all-women shortlists are at the vanguard of where our society is moving.

All-women shortlists have opened up the acceptability of gender quotas on boards and other institutions – it is inevitability of making one thing acceptable thereby allowing more similar things acceptable.

This site researched the issue a couple of years ago.

For the May 2015 elections, having changed the law over ten years ago to get round their employment tribunal defeat, Labour has continued to build on their previous support for all-women shortlists.  And as repeated before, no man should vote for Labour in these particular seats (see end).

Before March 2013, they had banned men from being candidates in 22 seats (see list one below) for the 2015 election and following consultations, they had decided to ban men from being candidates in a further 39 (see tranche 1 of those declared to pick from all women shortlists in the
future). This means men will be banned in 61 seats, compared to 58 in 2010.

Just a point for the Justice for Men and Boys party but an angle for choosing any new candidates may be to put them up in seats where Labour have chosen from an all-women shortlist as there is a clear hook to say that men were banned from being their candidate.

This theme of modern-day anti-male radical feminism can be seen in this article in the Guardian.
Of 18 open contests, 17 winners were men so the response is one that there must be some form of discrimination and that women must be given special treatment and more all –women shortlists introduced.

Of course, the results above do not take into account the fact that because men have been banned in so many of the seats before these selections, that the good quality women will have bagged an all women shortlist seat, so for the open seats, then men in the frame will be of very high
quality. Obviously that is too logical for Labour’s anti-male brigade to process.

As for the Conservatives, with their Women2 Win set up, they are still giving special treatment to women who want to be Conservative MP’s including special training sessions in September on how to become selected.

As for the Lib Dems, they are concerned about 66% of their members oppose all women shortlists. At least they are still sticking to equality and liberalism.

The key thing is that banning people (in this case men) from seeking public office because of a particular characteristic is a sign of a totalitarian state and not a democratic one. It is of the utmost hypocrisy of Labour to champion equal suffrage earlier this year while at the same time, 100 years later, they are banning people from standing for public office under their banner solely because of their gender. The Pankhurss must be trining in their graves.

Posted by Skimmington

(1) Parliamentary seats where Labour have already banned men from being their Parliamentary candidate:

Thurrock

Carlisle

Lincoln

Northampton North

Hastings & Rye

Worcester

Warwick & Leamington

South Swindon

Stevenage

Norwich North

Great Yarmouth

High Peak

Peterborough

Harlow

Redcar

Dover

Stafford

Redditch

Reading West

Tamworth

Cambridge

Bristol West

 (2) Seats where Labour intend to ban men from being their Parliamentary candidate:

Ealing Central & Acton

Enfield North

Harrow East

Hornsey & Wood Green

Lewisham Deptford

Stockton South

Weaver Vale

Wirral West

Brighton Kemptown

Brighton Pavilion

Kingswood

Aberconwy

Cardiff Central

Cardiff North

Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire

Birmingham Yardley

Dudley South

Halesowen & Rowley Regis

Nuneaton

 

Erewash

Croydon Central

Hampstead and Kilburn

Burnley

Lancaster & Fleetwood

Morecambe & Lunesdale

South Ribble

Argyll & Bute

Rugby

Brigg & Goole

Colne Valley

Dewsbury

CAMERON'S 2013 RESHUFFLE WILL BE THE MOST SEXIST ON RECORD

In the next few weeks there is likely to be a Ministerial Reshuffle (Conservative Home believe it won't be at cabinet level) and Cameron will start to deliver on his promise to have a third of all ministers, including those at a Cabinet level, as women. Women, will be the winners, not talent.

This is in keeping with the European trend of quotas (formal/legal or informal/public declarations) including in France and Spain. Currently, there are 48 (165) MP's out of 304 MP's in total.

The issue has been talked about for weeks in the media and the issues are three fold.

Firstly, just like the issue on boardroom quota's - meritocracy is the biggest loser which goes against the whole principle of 'the best person for the job' - irrelevant of gender.

• Some talented men will be denied a position a Minister solely because they are a man (this was the same as revealed in this report about the Conservative Party's gender quota A-list).
• Some women will remain as ministers or in the cabinet (as revealed by Daily Mirror) even if they are not good enough because to lose female ministers means Cameron will fear a backlash (and he will get one as he did last year).  
• Some women will be promoted into being a Minister when they are not good enough. 

Any decision based on a quota or gender target is sexist - if a talented man does not get into the cabinet or becomes a Minister because he has to be overlooked to ensure enough women are in place, then he is a victim of sexism. And like so many supine politicians, he will sit there and be quiet. 

Why would be Conservative men moan about gender quotas when they say nothing about boardroom quotas or men and boys issues in general.

Further to all of this, if there are not enough women being promoted then modern-day radical feminists will be whining and shouting all over the airwaves with their hatred for men and disdain for equality and meritocracy.

Will anyone in the media have the balls to confront them and ask them why politicians should not be chosen on merit, whether they agree that an inferior women should be promoted over a better man and whether they can actually pinpoint any examples of a talented women who is not a Minister and an untalented man who is. Don't them talk about numbers, they must talk about individuals - as that is the important point.

Lastly, the British public as part of the democratic process should be governed by the best people for the job. If that meant all women - so be it - but they want the best people, that is what they vote for. Why should the people that govern us be chosen because of the gender not their ability? We need the best people that is what we vote for.

This summer's reshuffle will be the most sexist on record. The most sexist against men.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Conservative women wnat special treatment because like most politicians they are only in it for themselves.

GOLF CLUB EQUALITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FAILURE OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM TOWARDS BOYS

On Monday, UCAS published its figures on university admissions and the main story was that white teenagers (especially boys) were less likely to go to university than black teenagers especially boys.

Buried away was the fact that "Gender remains one of the biggest factors in application rates, with females remaining substantially more likely to apply. In 2012 in England, 49% (40% in 2007) of women
applied compared with 38% (31% in 2006) of men." 

Roughly for every seven applications, four are from girls and three are for boys - an actual gap in 2012 of 29%. 

This is an issue this site keep turning to (here and here) and still the silence from politicians, the government equalities office, department for education etc is deafening. Not a word from the Minister for Equalities - she thinks men-only golf clubs are more of an equalities issue.

It is why there are now more and more women earning more than men in their household, or when they are in their 20's and why more men are unemployed than women.

Reverse the genders (The Lyndon Concept) and there would be hell to pay - more attention is on the number of women in the boardroom or the cabinet or golf clubs.

 If ever there was a need for a responsible men's equality organisation this is the reason.

Posted by Skimmington

 

MINISTER FOR WOMEN MILLER TO BRING IN MORE INSIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BOYS - WILL BARWELL AND WILLETTS BE SILENT?

The Observer is running a story today that shows how anti-male the government is. The story is that the Minister of Women (still no Minister for Men - 16 years and waiting) is to launch an information pack that

"will offer advice on how to guide daughters through subject and career choices, amid concerns that many people feel they lack key parenting skills at such crucial times. It is feared that girls are not being brought up to be ambitious for themselves. The number of female chief executives in the FTSE 100 has fallen in the past year, with just three now heading large London-listed firms."

All at the taxpayers expense of course.

This is insidious for a number of reasons.

The last two generations of boys are the ones that need help

Just look at four key areas

• Just 30% of male school-leavers applied to university for autumn 2012, compared to 40% of female school-leavers.
• Boy's results at school continue to be way behind those of girls, especially English
• There are far fewer men than women entering the professions
• Unemployment is higher for men (1.4 million) than women (1.1 million) - despite the spin put out that women suffered more in the recession than men (as the CIPD showed)

Ignoring the generation gap

The average age of a FTSE-100 board member is 57 so if there is an issue with unambitious women, it is not the girls and young women of today (who are going to university and/or entering the professions - encouraged by their fathers and mothers) it with those entering or in their 40's. Many of whom do not want to be in the boardroom (anti-male feminists like Karen Brady and the 30% club always presume that every women wants to be a board member).

So therefore to provide information guides to parents with daughters to enable them to be more ambitious and successful is not only nonsense when they are more successful than boys already, it is discrimination and reinforcing disadvantage.

Not just because parents with sons won't get them (imagine a family with twins - one boy and one girl - she gets the pack he doesn't! ) but that it will make it even harder for boys to compete as they are not being encouraged and girls are. It will push them further behind.

Where is David Willetts MP who said that society and there were discriminatory barriers against boys going to university and working class men. Where is Gavin Barwell MP who sponnsored the report raising his concerns about feminism and boys education. Both of these are Conservatives, so why are they letting Maria Miller who is also a Conservative get away with this?

This initiative is driving a stake through the heart of equality and rubbing another generation of boys face in it. The Minister for Equalities is making it harder for equality to be achieved.

 Men are to blame for women not going into boardrooms

The underlying theme for all those who want quotas remember is that it is men are to blame and it is another male conspiracy driven by the some the tyranny of the patriarchy ideology. Quotas would discriminate against men.  

This is the real driver for Miller. She has bought into the anti-male ideology of her predecessors and wants to be loved by the anti-male feminists. She can get away with it because no one dare take her on - who speaks up for men and boys in this government?

This initiative is not about equality. It is about reinforcing inequality against boys, pulling the drawbridge up further from them.

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

UNIVERSITY ENTRY FIGURES SHOW STRUCTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BOYS

On Tuesday, Prostate Cancer UK highlighted the institutional discrimination men faced in the area of cancer research and today in an interview and article in The Independent, Universities Minister David Willetts said that white working class boys should be treated as an ethnic minority because so few are now going to university.  He also was interviewed on the Radio 4 Today programme and there was a follow up article in The Independent on the issue.

The final figures for last autumn's university intake in the UK show a fall in applications from men which was four times that among women. Just 30% of male school-leavers applied to university for autumn 2012, compared to 40% of female school-leavers, according to UCAS.

In his interview he quotes:

"There are now more women who enter university each year than there are men who submit a Ucas form. That marks a tremendous achievement for women, who were in a minority among undergraduates as recently as the 1990s. But it is also the culmination of a decades-old trend in our education system which seems to make it harder for boys and men to face down the obstacles in the way of learning. That is a challenge for all policymakers."

There are four issues here.

Firstly, 'the challenge for all policymakers' that Willetts talks about is a challenge that has been known for decades but the educataion establishment has been too frightened and politically correct (only girls count - boys are disposable) to do anything about it. Politicians, policymakers and the establishment like the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Government Equalities Department are too biased against men. No point in Willetts saying there is a challenge but not offering a solution. 

Secondly, Willetts and others are still to afraid to go that extra mile and admit that the education system and Britain as a whole) are institutionally biased against boys and has been captured by ideologues who only view women and girls as important.

Thirdly, as 'Groan' pointed out in his comments on the last post, if organisations such as the Fawcett Society, Equalities and Human Rights Commission, The Guardian, the TUC etc want quotas for women in boardrooms, then why not quotas for university places for boys? I am not in favour as all quotas are wrong, but it is a point worth making in showing up their hypocrisy. 

Lastly, this is another landmark story (I take the point as one reader mentioned this week that we have known about the figures for years but this and the cancer story have dominated the headlines on both days respectively). Both highlight beyond doubt the structural and institutional discrimination against men. In two areas, of fundamental importance - education and health.

The door of opportunity on these and so many other issues is starting to open. We need to keep the pressure on.

Posted by Skimmington.   

Media Update (other coverage) - BBC with debate

Ps tried a new font (Verdana) is it better than Arial?

2012 REVIEW OF MALE INEQUALlTY AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE UK

Thank you to everyone who has supported the site (despite the sometime intermittent service) and this year (the seventh year it has been going), the site had 83,000 page views and 160 published pieces.

Thanks to everyone who contributed either in submitting articles or in commenting upon them. I have also updated some of the groups on the left hand side of this page - please remember to send over any that are missing.

In terms of what progress has been made in male equality and ending male discrimination, this year can again be seen as two steps forward one step back. The gain has mainly due to the efforts of individuals and groups taking up the mantle of male equality through organising themselves and not relying on politicians or other groups to do it for them. As we know, institutional sexism remains rife in Britain, so the welcome realisation is that we cannot rely on those same institutions for help.

In terms of the positives on particular issues, there have been some.

Family Law reform is moving forward with the concept of shared parenting being the accepted direction of travel (Parliamentary Briefing and subsequent announcement). This was despite the Norgrove Report denigrating shared parenting - though the fact Norgrove remains Chair of the Family Justice Review Board is surely untenable.

Boys Education remains the truth that dare not say its name. While boys continue to lag behind girls, the public policy silence remains deafening, despite some starting to publicly recognise it as a concern. The one glimmer of light is that the government is to bring back O-Level type examinations (one of the first big topics this site set out) however this will not be until 2017 (in terms of first exams), so that means 30 years of destruction has befallen the education of boys by bringing in an examination system wholly unacceptable to the way boys learn. The problems facing boys was eloquently laid out in this report and can be seen feeding through into pay.

The re-introduction of O-levels though is more down to Gove's desire for rigour rather than an acceptance that the education establishment has got it wrong for three decades and left generations of boys behind.

Women rejecting discrimination and excuses - we know that modern-day radical feminists that dominate the BBC, the Guardian, the senior parts of the civil service/academia/publc sector, the media and politics (including their "White Knight's") are out of touch with the thoughts and needs of modern women. Especially those who actually like men and want their fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, boyfriends etc to succeed. Research at the beginning of the year showed this as did this report at the end of the year.

Three issues that were never 'seen' as affecting men have also started to be recognised - human trafficking, forced marriage/honour violence and circumcision (and here). The latter has really taken off with the German court verdict and the manslaughter of a baby in the North West.

Lastly, this was the year that male equality issues started to enter the mainstream. In addition, to the above issues and groups working within them, the 'movement' started to mature. We saw the fruits of sensible campaigning by father's groups, Mike Buchanan's work at the Campaign for Merit in Business challenging the status quo leading to Select Committee appearances and even campaigns against the NSPCC succeeding. We have also seen campaigns against Virgin in Australia.

The National Conference for Men and Boys continues to grow, as does International Men's Day in the UK and also the celebration of Fathers on Father's Day. This maturity can be seen against the growing desperation of anti-male feminist groups trying to keep their requests for discrimination against men and special treatment on the political agenda.

On the negative side, we saw the continuing clamour for quotas and the ending of meritocracy over boardoom appointments gathering pace, however, while the governmet refused to accept EU legislation, there remains the social stigmatisation of companies if they do not comply with an 'unofficial quota'. Some have given in.

Mike Buchanan's campaign for Merit in Business has stood up to the argument mainly I think from a biological determinist sense, while this site's approach is mainly that quotas etc are discriminatory in blocking men because of their gender not talent and are against the fundamental tenets of equality.

Other areas that continue to be ignored are the male suicide rate, men's health especially on continual delays on a national screening programme, male victims of domestic abuse, male homelessness, male unemployment and the general demonisation of men by society, the media and groups such as the Fawcett Society, the Guardian and the government. We still have mobile phone sites defaming men's rights websites. There is still no Minister for Men, the most visible expression of anti-male equality (15 years).

What I am hoping for 2013, is that the growing maturity of the male equality sector continues with new sensible groups being created (only where there is a gap) or men and women joining existing ones.

There needs to be the celebratory groups such as International Men's Day and Father's Day, conferences, campaigns on particular issues, practical goups (like CALM, FNF, ManKind Initiative, Centre for Separated Families etc) providing practical on the ground solutions and also probably a more political group (not necessarily  political party).

The growing desperation of anti-male feminist groups like the Fawcett Society will be called into question mainly by women who are rejecting their hatred of the men they share their lives with.

This is what I would like to see so that come this time next year - we are starting to see equality for men, and the barriers that prevent them enjoying equality being further dismantled.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Forgot about this article

 

 

NEWS UPDATE INCLUDING ANNOUNCEMENT ON MEN'S POLITICAL PARTY

Hi everyone - thank you for sending through new stories and reporting the broken link (restored hopefully below).

I haev also caught up on the debate on the comments in teh comments section about Mike Buchanan's announcement of a political party and the Daily Mail article so have updated this post with the news.

The Guardian - Education is leaving boys behind (Ally Fogg)

Daily Telegraph - Women's unwelcome Xmas present (Jo Swinson - Minsiter for Women and Equalities): As expected, anti-male feminists do not like equality unless it benefits women. Note Minister for "Women and equalities" - no mention of men. Not sure what to make of this  from actor David Webb

Daily Telegraph - Stuntman's wife charged with domestic abuse 

Daily Mail - Amy Winehouse's ex hits out at false rape accusation (Mark Duell)

Posted by Skimmington

NEWS UPDATE - THE CRACKS ARE STARTING TO SHOW

There has been a substantial amount of coverage on men's issues this past ten days and below is a summary of the main articles. The cracks are just starting to show in the war against men.

Employment and boardrooms

Mike Buchanan - Angela Epstein receives a Maggie and the coverage on Sunday Morning Live. Mike and friends have launched the Winston, Maggie and Harpy awards.

Parliament (Women and 'Equalities questions) - Debate on women on boards and Philip Davies MP stands up for equality and meritocracy.

Third Sector - FTSE boards view female third sector executives as toxic (Jenna Pudelek) More scaremongering without any factual foundation.

TUC - Black boys have experienced sharpest rise in unemployment during recession: The TUC proves itself wrong. 

Daily Telegraph - Female quotas 'negatively affect' business, says minister (Rowena Mason)

Daily Telegraph - Equalities Minsiter says women need to challenge themselves and play a wider role in society (Rowena Mason): What is significant here is that this and the above article show that some women are now challenging the myths and hypocrisy of quotas which we know are solely being advocated as a discriminatory measure against men, meritocracy and equality.

Daily Telegraph - Companies to be forced to publish gender audits of employees (Louisa Peacock): does this count for the public sector which is dominated by women? The comment in the Telegraph comments section sums it up:

"Yet more discrimination against my white English husband who supports his family and has never been unemployed in his life"

Feminism

Netmums - What does feminism mean to the modern women: The research showed that only 17% of women described themselves as feminists (though more young women did which shows their radicalisation), that modern-day feminism did not represent them and that 28% felt it was too aggressive with 17% thinking it was anti-male. This landmark research has had the feminists blogs apoplectic as it damages their whole reason to be. Coverage in The Express, Telegraph and Daily Mail

Politics

Guido Fawkes - Quota of the Day

The Times - We do not need a Minister for Women (Ruth Porter): Subscription only

Family Law

Daily Mail - Why I stole my children (Ian Gallagher)

Daily Telegraph - Female breadwinners losing out (John Bingham): Staggering hypocrisy of the "want their cake and eat it kind". Pannone can be added to the list of anti-male organisations in the UK.

Prisons

Parliament - Download Prison Sentence Inequality - UK Parliament 16 Oct 2012 (2) (Philip Davies MP) : Again the MP excels himself by bringing into Parliament the myth that sentencing is far harsher for women than men. The Men's Network summarises the story. Thanks you to James Williams for circulating far and wide.

False Accusations

Teeside Gazette - Middlesbrough man hounded after being cleared of rape

Health

BBC - Prostate cancer barcode tests: Unless there is 'compulsory' organised screening for prostate cancer on a national basis like there is for breast and cervical cancer then there can be as many tests as you like but until that is in place things will not progress as they should.

Hanna Rosin book - The End of Men

Daily Mail - Is the male of the species now redundant (Bev Mooney)

Daily Telegraph - Interview

The Guardian - Cardboard men (John Harris)

The Guardian - It's not the end of men (Ally Fogg)

The portayal of men

Daily Telegraph - The descent of men (William Leith)

Education

Daily Telegraph - Young boys stuggling to write their name (Graeme Paton)

Domestic Violence

One in Three Report - Gaps in services revealed

General

Daily Mail - Why men love bossy women (Cosmo Landesman)

Daily Telegraph - BBC to draw up top 100 female power list: More Opus Dei-like self-flaggelation from the Beeb.

 Posted by Skimmimgton

 

Thanks to those that send links over

CABINET RESHUFFLE MEANS LACK OF PROGRESS ON EQUALITY FOR MEN CONTINUES

So the new cabinet comes in and what changes for men?

 

Maria Miller is the Culture Secretary with responsibility for Women and Equalities. This role at Cabinet Level was previously Theresa May’s.

   

Helen Grant MP, replaces Lynne Featherstone at equalities minister to become joint Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Ministry of Justice and for Women's and Equality issues. Helen Grant was one of Cameron’s A-listers which was specially designed to stop men from becoming MP’s. She has benefitted from sexism against men so no hope of equality from her.

 

On the Justice front, at least Ken Clarke recognised the need for reform on shared parenting and that even admitted that many mothers break contacts orders and get away with it. Chris Grayling his successor is a robust politician so we can hope he will drive things through on shared parenting and hopefully take a tougher stand on family courts.

 

Tim Loughton going as children's minister is a blow as he has been someone who has kept the flame alight on shared parenting. Let's hope his continues to do so on the backbenches.

 

In terms of health, I cannot see Jeremy Hunt being any more bothered about men's health than his predecessors. He seems the archetypical politician/corporate type who has no view on anything so it’s likely he just simply won't be interested.

 

Gove remain in place on education which means no reversal of the plans to do away with GCSE's and he at least wants rigour and discipline in schools which boys need.

 

The one additional issue is the continual pantomime about how many women and how many men are in the cabinet and have ministerial position. Of course, to anyone who believes in equality, the gender of those in government is irrelevant. But to those in the partisan/radical feminist camp like the Fawcett Society, BBC, Guardian and Equalities and Human Rights Commission - gender is more important than ability.

 

So the number of men and women in the new ministerial team will be picked apart and will do so I am sure over the next week. The Fawcett Society are on the case already.

 

Because of the political attention on the issue, it pressurises Cameron/Clegg (and Blair and Brown before them but that's their fault for encouraging it) to keep the numbers of women up. Cabinet is one thing and the number has been reduced to 4 from 5 but what about at the ministerial level. More will come out over the next few days.

 

We know there is someone into the Cabinet Office collating the information will be totting up the number of men and women. If the number of women are not high enough to satisfy the covert quota (the quota is at least the same as before with some upward ratchet – Cameron himself has declared hir goal to have women in one third of government postst by the end of this parliament) some women will be pushed up because they are women and some men pushed down or out all together because they are men. We know this is the likely answer. Even the Conservatives themselves see it.

 

It does not matter if Cameron/Clegg say there is no quota, there is one subliminally and the coming day or so will see what the shift is. We know The Guardian is watching with McCarthyite intent, and if the numbers are down overall it will be down to evil men not based on the available talent.

 

It is just like those in the 30 per cent club or Women on Boards who debated with Mike Buchanan on Radio 4 who say they do not want a quota. That is an untruth. Not only is the 30 per cent club named after a quota, whenever, there is not an increase of women in FTSE roles they scream blue murder, therefore an unofficially sublimely quota comes into existence.Covert pressure in terms of "if we don't put more women on the board, we'll be attacked for it, no matter whether or not we have suitable people or not."

 

Overall the cabinet reshuffle does nothing for men - many of us knew it would be the case so we'll carry on with our campaigning - its too important to stop.

 

Posted by Skimmington

THE ANTI-MALE DISCRIMINATION OF ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS CONTINUES

Proving the old adage of "once you give an inch they take a mile" right can be clearly seen by the campaign for quotas for places for women on the boards of companies and the witch-hunt (the feminist witchocracy) on those who do not comply. The effect of the quotas is to end meritocracy and the blocking of individuals (men) from being on boards because of the gender.  

The precursor, and one that has never received as much attention as it should do is the anti-male all-women shortlist phenomena. Covered extensively on this site including a full research report outlining their history and how men are being disenfranchised in the political system.

This is the system where the Labour Party bans men from putting their names forward to be Parliamentary candidates for that party at General Elections. It is such a deliberate and mendacious piece of men-hating legislation. 

In April last year the site highlighted the fact that Labour were still intent on using them in a number of seats and now some of those seats have selected their candidates. No men and no women who believe in equality should vote Labour in any of these seats:

Dover - Clair Hawkins

Harlow - Suzy Stride

Worcester -   Joy Squires

Stevenage - Sharon Taylor

Swindon South - Anne Snelgrove

Hastings & Rye - Sarah Owen

Northampton North - Sally Keeble

Lincoln - Lucy Rigby

Thurrock - Polly Billington

 

Previously I had listed seats such as Peterbrough, Reading West, Brighton Kemptown, Burton and Redditch as using this procedure but could not find any reference to a candidate having eventually been chosen.

There continues to be much rancour within the Labour Party about the policy but none ever looks at the blatant discrimination against men. Articles include these:

Ben Cobley (against) versus Luke Akehurst (for) and then Atul Hatwal (against AWS but wants quotas)

Charlotte De Vere (a Conservative against them) versus Harman (for!!!!)

Scarlet Standard (unsmilingly for!)

As was seen by the use of quotas by the Conservative Party and the comments on the last News Update showing how the Conservatives have elected a cadre of anti-male women who enjoyed the benefits of quotas (A-List and special treatment). It means male related issues such as depression, family law, domestic abuse, men's health, health and safety and unemployment are not even being discussed.

There are hold-ups in more selections because of Parliamentary boundary changes (as a result of reducing the number of MP's from 650 to 600) so there seems to be a lack of selections for the next General Election (May 2015) at the moment. When the boundaries are sorted there will be a tidal wave, and that will lead to be a fresh tidal wave of male discrimination.

Posted by Skimmington