Scottish Labour - Party of [IN]equality

The Labour Party operates a system of positive discrimination when deciding who to select as a prospective parliamentary candidate (PPC).  This system is designed to increase the number of women PPCs being selected by local parties and then elected to seats in Holyrood or at Westminster. 

However, the system is not without criticism and is open to abuse, as recent Holyrood and Westminster selections have demonstrated in Scotland.  Additionally, no parallel system of positive discrimination exists for PPCs who have a disability or come from a particular minority ethnic background.  

This article explores the institutional failures of the Labour Party to address the inequality experienced by PPCs and highlights the abuses that can take place, when a system of positive discrimination is not properly regulated or controlled.  

Recruitment of PPCs within the Labour Party

All PPCs are required to apply to the Party centrally first.  If the application meets the required criteria, the applicant is invited for interview.  Assuming there is no legal barrier, the majority of applicants who have met the criteria, succeeded at interview and attended a compulsory training day, receive the necessary accreditation to seek selection at a local level.  

Disability Discrimination 

Although the above system bears resemblance to any recruitment exercise for employment, all the classic hallmarks disability discrimination begin to emerge.  Throughout the process, the Party neglects to offer reasonable adjustments to facilitate the participation of applicants with a disability.  

This is an important legal requirement that applies to any job application.  Disabled people face many barriers to participation in the workforce, and likewise, disabled PPCs also face barriers to becoming PPCs.     

Even after interview, the discrimination against disabled applicants continues.  At the training events, no question was asked of applicants about reasonable adjustments.  In the author's experience, the problem of disability discrimination was made worse when the Party staff compounded the issue by setting "ground rules" which also discriminated.  

One of the ground rules for the training, to turn off all electronic devices, directly discriminated against candidates who required the use of assisted technology to participate.  This meant that disabled candidates, who required the use of technology, were forced not only to disclose their disability but also to raise their concerns in front of other non disabled candidates.  

Positive Discrimination - Women Only

The Party uses positive discrimination measurers to exclusively promote the selection of PPCs who are women.  This system is referred to as an all women shortlist.  In other cases, the Party twins two local constituencies with a guarantee that one constituency must select a female candidate and the other constituency a male or female candidate.  

This system of positive discrimination is meant to increase the number of female candidates being elected to Parliament.  However, no other political party has adopted this approach to selecting candidates and the system is open to abuse, when not carefully monitored or applied consistently.   

The abuse of the positive discrimination system is discussed below.  

Edinburgh West - Identified as a Key Seat but did not use Positive Discrimination

When the Party moved to select Cllr Cameron Day for the Edinburgh West UK parliamentary constituency, the selection committee was composed of individuals - including fellow Councillors - who had already declared their support for this candidate.  

Additionally, even though the Party had identified this as a Key seat, the Party chose not to deploy either an all women short list or a twinning arrangement to select a candidate.  

The selection timetable was also rushed through and objections concerning the arrangements were ignored.  The Party refused to accept or acknowledge any complaints.

It is important to remember that discrimination can be both direct and indirect.  The discrimination in this case was indirect, because while it did not directly exclude female PPCs from seeking selection, the selection process as a whole placed women at a particular disadvantage.     

It is common knowledge that the majority of carers, part time workers and stay at home parents are women.  The arrangements in this selection, had been set in such a way - over the school holidays - that would make it difficult, if at all possible, to successfully apply for selection, contact members, attend hustings and finally a selection meeting.  

In fact, the chair of the selection committee and one of the key proponents of the rushed timetable, was Cllr. Lesley Hinds, whom had made no secret of her support for candidature of Cllr. Day.

In this case, the Party specifically chose not to deploy an all women short list or a twinning arrangement.  If the Party wished to promote equality for women and enable greater participation, and increase the number of female MPs returned to Westminster, why did it not do so here?

Dunfermline by-election - an Open Selection Turns into an All Women Shortlist

The Party announced the selection of candidates for the Dunfermline by-election.  At this stage, the Party invited applications from all PPCs whom had been approved.  This was to be an open selection.  

However, during the course of this selection, the Party switched from an open selection to a closed, all women short list selection procedure.  This meant that the two male candidates were purposely removed from the selection procedure.  

The Party claimed, that they wished to emphasise the issue of "domestic abuse" and hence chose to deploy an all women short list.  

The Party here not only discriminated against the two male candidates - by bumping them from the selection process - but also belittled the experience of male victims of domestic abuse.  

The use of domestic abuse, as a reason for creating an all women shortlist, is unlawful.  

This constituted a direct act of discrimination on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, disability, gender recognition, race, religion and age.  Whether on their own or in concert, people with each of these legally protected characteristics also experience abuse, which is why an all women short list cannot be justified.

Edinburgh Northern and Leith - One Candidate for the All Women Shortlist

The Party received an announcement that the male MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith was to retire.  Accordingly, the Party began the search for a new candidate.  Following consultation with the local Party, it was decided to create an all women short list.  However, what was the Party's motivation for doing so?  

As the selection process begins, it emerged, at close of nominations, that there was only one candidate.  

That candidate, a leading proponent of the all women short list system, was Cllr. Lesley Hinds.  

Cllr Hinds and Cllr Day (the PPC for Edinburgh West) had agreed to mutually support one another, to ensure their respective nominations.  

As you recall from above, it was Cllr Hinds who lead the selection process for Edinburgh West and now, having ensured Cllr Day's selection was free to pursue Edinburgh Northern and Leith.  

In order to cement this relationship, Cllr Day began an active lobby on Cllr Hinds behalf.  For example, at a Labour fundraising event, he introduced Cllr Hinds to the assembled gathering from the floor as, "the next Labour MSP for Northern and Leith".  

This constituted a personal canvass on behalf of Cllr. Hinds.  This was not only against the Party rules, but no selection process had begun and no potential candidate was meant to solicit support, in advance of an announced selection process.   

In this case, the decision to use an all women shortlist was not about promoting women in politics.  It was not about addressing inequality either.  The system was abused to select one candidate in particular, who just happened to be a woman.  The lack of opposition at the selection meeting, speaks for itself.  

Edinburgh Local Government Selection

Prior to the European Election, the Party again decided to discriminate unlawfully.  

In this case, the local Edinburgh membership, was informed that only women members would be invited to apply to the local government list - this is an internal list from which the Party selects local government candidates.

The Party had hoped, that they would be able to nominate an all women shortlist in the event of a by-election.  

When this was pointed out as unlawful discrimination, the Party said that they would open the list to everyone at a later stage.  However, there was no reason why the list could no be opened up to everyone immediately.

The correct approach, if the Party wished to increase the prevalence of women on the list, would have been to welcome, encourage and support more women to come forward.      

Edinburgh Western Scottish Parliament Selection - Discrimination Against Minority Ethnic Candidates

In Labour's selection for Edinburgh Western, two male candidates from a minority ethnic background, one other male candidate and one white female candidate all sought selection for the twinned constituencies of Edinburgh Western and Edinburgh Pentlands.

It is important to remember that there was no suggestion of racism in this particular selection or that the Party behaved in a racist manner.  However, the problem of indirect discrimination was not addressed.  

The female candidate would automatically be selected because the two constituencies were twinned. This meant that the three male PPCs had to compete for the remaining constituency.  In this case, the successful male candidate happened to be a Party insider as an aide to the leader of Labour in Scotland.

The Labour Party's Point of View

In recent commentary, the Party has described it's selection processes as fair and transparent. Additionally, the Party also considers the use of both all women shortlists and the twinning procedure as a progressive measure.

The author agrees that it is a progressive to seek increased representation and participation from women in politics.  The difficulty here arises where a hierarchy of competing priorities is created, to the exclusion of others.   

The Party does not support candidates from minority ethnic backgrounds, candidates who are disabled or posses any other protected characteristic, unless they are female.  This is where the problems with both direct and indirect discrimination arise.   

The Party also advocates both a "fair and transparent" selection system, placing all candidates on an equal footing, under one set of rules.  However, the rules are, more often than not, ignored.  The selection process is neither fair nor transparent, it is open to abuse, and it discriminates both directly and indirectly.  

Selecting the Few, not the Many

In the Edinburgh Western example, the successful male candidate worked as a party insider.  The two minority ethnic candidates stood no realistic chance of being selected for this reason.  Additionally, because a twinned arrangement was put in place, the only female candidate was automatically selected.  

No positive action measures are deployed to support minority ethnic candidates.

In years gone by, Party staff, including the staff of MSPs or the Party leader, would have been barred from taking part in any selection process.  The reason for this rule, was simple - party staffers are already inside the system - they are already known, have access to the mass membership and automatically carry endorsement.  Local membership at party meetings are not going to move against that endorsement, nor would the Party permit an insider to fail.  It would be too embarrassing.

If this selection were to be considered fair, the Party should have taken a wider view, in order to eliminate any direct or indirect discrimination.  This was not done.   

Summary 

Contrary, to the Party's stated position of equality, fairness and transparency, the Party does discriminate and does not operate fair procedures.

The Party does not fulfil its legal obligations to eliminate both direct an indirect discrimination.   

The non-discrimination provisions of the Equality Act are abused by the Party and decisions are made not to emancipate female PPCs but to promote certain candidates who just happen to be women.  

There is no support for disabled or minority ethnic candidates who also face significant barriers to participation, and candidates who are either disabled or represent a minority ethnic community are routinely discriminated against.  

The Party machine lacks sufficient understanding of it's legal obligations - and refuses offers of help - to improve its practices.  

While it is a legitimate aim to increase the number of female politicians in both Holyrood and Westminster, the single minded, positive discrimination approaches deployed by Labour are open to abuse.  

If the current status quo is not altered and core behaviour changed, the Public will once again decline to return a Labour Government come 2016.  

Sexual assaults against men...surely not?

Are men and women equal in the eyes of the law when it comes to sexual assault?

Is violence against women the same as violence against men?

This is a story from the past, but relevant to today concerning our attitudes of how we justify to ourselves right from wrong based on assumptions about gender.


When I was in my early 20's, I took to wearing my Kilt out and about, just on the odd time or two. On one occasion, I had stopped to tie my shoe lace or something, I cant quite recall what.

At the same time, a group of giggly girls and women passed by, I think they may have been on a Hen Night. Anyhow, two of the group approached me and tried to lift my kilt and feel me underneath.

I was, for want of a better phrase, quite shocked and had to push one of the girls off me. I also had to be quite forceful in telling the girls to "fuck off".

It was not a "bit of a laugh", at least for me.

My fault
I was wearing my Kilt. I naturally had decided to draw attention to myself. I therefore invited this kind of act...or had I?

Role reversal

Now consider this, had my gender been female, had I been wearing a nice outfit and looked good for a night out, would it have been acceptable for a group of men to come over and attempt to feel me up?

I hope all would agree that the answer is No!

So, why then, was it acceptable for a group of girls to do this to me?

Is gender relevant?

Time has moved on.

Unfortunately, our attitudes to sexual violence against both women and men have not.

The law has also changed. The Criminal Law, recognises that assaults of this type are gender neutral.

The moral of the story is...

So the next time you see a man in a kilt, or a woman wearing nice clothes, it is not an invitation to go and feel them up, to Wolf whistle or try to sexualise them in some other way.

Most importantly, if they decide to complain to a passing Police Constable, expect to get arrested.

Above all else, they didn't deserve it, because like everyone else that night, they had chosen to wear some nice clothes.

If you have been a victim of abuse and are seeking support, please use the links below to access help, advice and support.

The sites below are largely Scottish. However, if you would like to suggest other links, please get in touch.


If you are in immediate danger dial 999 for the police.


Police Scotland
http://www.scotland.police.uk/

Victim Support Scotland
http://www.victimsupportsco.org.uk/page/index.cfm

Scottish Domestic Abuse Helpline
http://www.sdah.info/

Scottish Women's Aid
http://www.scottishwomensaid.org.uk/

Abused Men in Scotland
http://www.abusedmeninscotland.org/index.html

Broken Rainbow - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Abuse Charity
http://www.brokenrainbow.org.uk/

More Women Please in the Boardroom and in Politics

In our society, women constitute just over 50% of the population.  Taking this figure into account, why are there not more women seen in politics?  Perhaps, this is the wrong question to ask - there are lots of women active in politics - just not represented in our Parliaments or in our Local Government. This then changes the question, why are there not more women in Parliament or Local Government?

Background

Many readers will be familiar with the sociological concept of patriarchy.  This is where society, in almost all aspects, is dominated or controlled by men.  This can been seen at a number of levels; men still dominate the Board Rooms of large corporations, men are heavily featured in Parliament, the Judiciary, Senior Government Roles and so on.  Women still earn on average less than men in terms of their take home pay and certain Professions, at a senior level, remain dominated by men.

Against this background, we contrast the following:

Women, on average, are performing better in education than men.  Similarly, the majority of entrants to the legal profession, at the junior level, are also women.  Women are also more likely than men to take part in, or organise campaigns at a local level for example, to stop the closure of a local school or hospital.  Women are less likely than men to take risks, for example by driving dangerously, or in making risky financial decisions.  Women also live longer than men and are generally better at taking care of their own health and wellbeing than men.

If women are more responsible, are better educated, are more than able to take part in politics, then why are there not more women in Parliament or in Local Government?

No Easy Answer

Of course, it it easy to answer this question from the point of view of discrimination, or blocking from the boardroom, perhaps even societal expectations and expected gendered roles.  However, it is actually more complex than that.

Access to Power

If we first turn to the boardroom.  This example also translates into politics.  In order to get there, you need access.  Unfortunately, it is not as simple as simply walking through the door and taking your seat at the table.  If women are not given the same access to the opportunities that men have, certainly at senior level, then women will always hit the "glass ceiling".  This is an analogy which continues to be relevant.  Women are granted access to a certain level and thereafter, have to stare through at the men sitting above them.

If the boardroom remains controlled by men, then why would men want to change that?  If the current model of working suits, why change it.

Men are not all the same

First of all, it is important to note that not all men subscribe to the concept of control or exclusion.  However, it takes a brave soul to instigate change.  Usually, a carrot and stick approach is necessary here.  For example, a change in the law.  This in itself, is not enough.  The equal pay act and the sex discrimination act all failed to achieved either board room parity or parity in pay with men.  Even to this day, women are fighting it out in employment tribunals across the UK to achieve the same rights as their male counterparts.

The powers that be, whether in the board room or in politics, inevitably still favour men.  This may not be direct discrimination against women, but usually indirect, where a policy, criteria or practice, applying both to men and women has a disproportionate effect on women.

We know that a majority of women remain the primary carers for children, for older relatives and also  work as a majority in certain work roles e.g., cleaning staff, catering, social work and teaching.  These responsibilities do not lend well to taking part in the boardroom, or seeking selection as a candidate for a political party (the precursor to seeking election as a candidate).

Indirect Discrimination in the Boardroom

If you are the primary carer for your disabled son, would you be able to drop those responsibilities at a moments notice, to enter into an extended board meeting?  The answer, in the majority of cases, is likely to be no.

In order to do that, you would need help and support.  First of all, you would need someone to share your caregiving responsibilities, board meeting would have to be arranged at family friendly times, you would need the support of your colleagues to take time off for inevitable appointments with the doctor and so on.  If you are an executive, sitting on a governing board, how likely are your colleagues to be that supportive - particularly if they are all, or by majority, men?

Indirect Discrimination in Politics

In order to get selected by a political party, you have to be seen to be active in that political party.  This means giving up personal time to go out and campaign, to deliver leaflets, attend conferences and events, meetings and so on.  If you are looking after your children, whilst your partner is at work, how easy is that going to be?

Similarly, if you are motivated enough and can find that spare time to actually get selected, what happens when you notice that Parliament sits late into the night, that there are no creche facilities, no extra allowances are provided for you and your family to employ a nanny or to permit your partner and children to re-locate to your new Parliamentary office?

The next obstacle involves persuading your colleagues that the rules should be changed.  However, bear in mind that the expenses scandal put any challenge to the current rules - to make them more family friendly - unlikely.

Solutions to this problem

1.  Identifying the institutional barriers

This seems easy to achieve.  However, as mentioned elsewhere, it is not as simple as that.  First of all, it is important to consult with women who have ambitions to join the board or enter politics.  We need to know what their experiences are, where their ambitions lay and what steps could be taken in order to help them achive their full potential.  

It is also important not just to look at women, but also look at men's experiences too.  Although, we have identified that a majority of women retain priminary responsibility as a care giver, a growing number of men, as well as women, now also perform this role.  In some cases, the responsibilities are shared between both partners in a family.  

It is also important to identify what systems currently operate in terms of recruitment - whether to elected office or the boardroom - and to perform an equality impact assesment.  This will help identify problems, for example with child care.  It will not identify all of the problems, but it will identify some.  

When you are aware of what the issues are or where the inequality in policies, practices or criteria lay, you can begine to apply some fixes.  If a particular policy sets board meetings at any time, then change it to accomodate family needs.  If you cannot take part in a selection meeting because you are looking after the children, ask for additional support from the political party to enable your participation.

2.  Take action

It is not enough to just look at the problems and say that there is an issue.  Talk is cheap.  What is important is that there is a measure of follow through.  It is not enough to say we have changed out recrutiment policy, or we now hold our meetings during the day, you have to stick with it and continue to improve and learn from the experiences generated along the way.  

There is no point encouraging women to come forward if you are not going to committ to providing the necessary support, education, training and rule changes that are necessary to facilitiate any change.  There has to be a full blown cultural change which tackles the institutionalism preventing many women coming forward.  

3.  All Women Shortlists

This is a form of direct affirmative action.  It is not without its merits and was sucessful in increasing the representation of women in both the Scottish Parliament and Westminster under the then Labour Governments.  

However, this is an extreme step.  It is a matter of debate whether in the long term a policy of all women shortlists will solve the problem.  

In the Labour Party, the decision was taken to use only all women shortlists.  However, following a decade of improved representation of women in both Parliaments, the numbers began to return to earlier levels.  Additionally, the Westminster Parliament took the retrograde step of reverting back to late night sittings of Parliament and the right to pay for your spouse to come to Parliament with you was withdrawn.  In essence, Parliament became the dominion of men once again.  Additionally, for the few women who did remain, they often had gorwn up families or came from families without children.  

If you are woman, or a man for that matter, with a family, how likely are you going to want to seek selection as a candidate if you know the working environment will not be family friendly?  This appears to the crux of the matter.  If the institution you are seeking election to is not family friendly, then what is the point of an all womens shortlist?  

Additionally, if the very party you are seeking to represent, is unwilling to move to change the rules that govern the system, or support you and your family inside the system, will you come forward to seek election?

An all womens shortlist will only work sucessfully if it allows all women - those with caring responsibilities and those without - to come forward as equals.  It will also only work where the institutional barriers have been broken to facilitiate full participation and are not tokenistic.  

At the moment, the reintroduction of an all womens shortlist system into politics or the board room would only act in the short term.  In the long term, like its precursor, it will fail.  

Moving Forward

The arguments reheresed in this article are not new and some may question the wisdom of writing about this issue.  However, it is important to remember that our democracy, whether local or national is meant to be representative.  Women constitute over 50% of the population, yet are routinely excluded from our political system.

Whether you believe in all women shortlists or not, society has to move out of an institutional mould and allow more women that coveted place at the top table. 

"Cut services for women, increase services for men..".

A new political party has been launched in the UK which plans to stand candidates across the United Kingdom in the next General Election.  

The political party is called Justice for Men and Boys (and the Women who love them)

On a radio debate on the BBC's Call Kaye Programme, broadcast on Monday 18 March 2013, the party's founder, Mike Buchanan, advocated, amongst other things cutting services aimed at women, because men contribute more tax revenue to the UK Exchequer than they do. 

There is merit in highlighting any form of gender inequality where it exists.

I doubt anyone would disagree on this salient point.

On the tax revenue issue, it is important to highlight that the majority of part time workers are women, that women still receive only 75% of the pay of male comparators and that women are still under represented in the boardroom.

No surprise that the majority of tax generated comes from men then, eh?

I believe that the approach taken here, and the policies being espoused by this new political party, are ultimately counter intuitive.

Men deserve more, women less

The key mantra put forward seems to be that men deserve the support more so than women.

By setting each of the sexes against one another like this, the approach, in my view, is counter intuitive for the following reasons;

• The approach taken works against the cause of campaigning for greater awareness of the inequalities which do exist between both men and women in the law, politics and social policy

• It is too simplistic because throwing money at a particular problem, may not necessarily, address that problem and fails to actually examine and address the under lying reason for the inequality in the first place.    

• By demanding resources are taken away from another group, to support your cause, there is a real risk of alienating allies and losing the argument. 

I wish to make clear from the outset that I do not subscribe to, nor support, the key political mantra of Justice for Men and Boys - I do not believe in removing support from women for the sake of it.

Health inequalities

The Following information is taken from the Men's Health Forum; which bases its information on statistics available from the Office of National Statistics.

  
It is important to note that rates of mental ill health between men and women are roughly equal.

Cause for concern

The illustrations given above are shocking.  They should, quite rightly, give any policy maker cause for concern.

However, what has caused, or continues to cause, such statistical inequality?

There is a range of sociological commentary on the subject.

Some of the reasons highlight,

• the level of risk taking behaviour in young men, 
• the rate of engagement with health care professionals by men - spotting a problem too late for instance.  
• that men lack the basic health education to look after themselves properly.    

If you look at these reasons, it is unlikely that taking money away from support services for women and diverting those resources into support services for men will make an automatic difference.

Multi faceted problems

If you set up a men only service, how can you be certain that men will use that service, if you are already aware that there is a problem of engagement?

Similarly, how do you address risk taking behaviours?  Or re-educate men to know that going to their GP regularly is important?

The Equality Act

There is an obligation on the National Health Service to promote equality of opportunity, to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to foster good relations.  This is referred to as the Public Sector Equality Duty.

This important legal obligation is made up of "general duty" described above and a series of "specific duties", designed to give teeth to the general duty.

The general duty applied across Great Britain and there are different specific duties for UK wide public authorities and for Public Authorities exclusively working in Scotland and Wales.

The NHS is also required not to discriminate as a service provider, as an educator or as an employer.

It is clear that there is a legal obligation on the NHS and any other public service provider to tackle health inequalities.

It would be interesting to see, on a health board by health board basis, what is actually being done to address men's health and the particular inequalities highlighted above.

Current work

There are a number of efforts already under way to look at these particular problems.  One such approach, is to encourage men to attend "well men" clinics, changing the culture of engagement and education by encouraging male role models, such as footballers, to take a lead.

Tackle the inequalities

It is important that the health inequalities between men and women are addressed.

However, the view of Justice for Men and Boys, involves taking a sledge hammer to an identified problem and hoping that by smashing it to pieces, it will some how make it right.

Here is what the Scottish Association for Mental Health (SAMH) had to say about suicide rates and men:

You can find out more about Twotoomany by clicking this link.