Suffragette march from 1910 to be recreated in Walthamstow

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy

Stella Creasy has called on local residents to take part in a march tomorrow for International Women’s Day.

Walthamstow’s Wonderful Women Walk will celebrate the talent and diversity of local women and organisers say it will encapsulate the spirit of British suffragettes as modern feminists continue to work towards equality.

“We really want this to be a big celebration of the future that Walthamstow has,” the Walthamstow MP said.

“We’re running at half power as a society because we just haven’t realised the ability of women and when we do that, we’ll all benefit.”

“What I’m doing with this march is being an advocate for all the women that we’re not hearing from, to try and encourage them to support each other, to come forward, and for men to see how important it would be for everyone if we did that.”

Inspiration for the walk came from a photograph Ms Creasy was shown depicting suffragettes in 1910 marching from Cedars Avenue, Walthamstow, as part of their campaign to allow women the vote.

The event ended with Emmeline Pankhurst, leader of the British suffragette movement, and her daughter Christabel addressing a crown on Walthamstow High Street.

It is hoped similar scenes will occur tomorrow, with those taking part encouraged to wear suffragette colours - purple, green and white - and sashes for a photograph, which will be taken on Cedars Avenue to mimic that taken more than 100 years ago.

Campaigner Arifa Nasim, 16, described Ms Creasy as an inspiration and said the march would be “a fantastic opportunity to proudly display what we have a achived over the last 100 years”.

The March begins at midday in Cedars Avenue and ends at Walthamstow Assembly Hall at 2pm, where the Waltham Forest Women’s Network is hosting events including a food festival, dancing and workshops.

Email Phillipa.Milne@colf.org for information or to help steward the event.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:04am Fri 7 Mar 14

Villagecranberry says...

Stella looks like she is singing her heart out, bless.
Stella looks like she is singing her heart out, bless. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Fri 7 Mar 14

NDevoto says...

Does this call to march to "residents" only include women? If so, how are those of us who have testicles to show our support? By staying out of the way?
Does this call to march to "residents" only include women? If so, how are those of us who have testicles to show our support? By staying out of the way? NDevoto
  • Score: 1

3:18pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Helen, Walthamstow says...

NDevoto wrote:
Does this call to march to "residents" only include women? If so, how are those of us who have testicles to show our support? By staying out of the way?
It says residents, not just women, so get yourself along and join in!

And if so moved, you can now set about organising an event for International Men's Day. November 19 is the date. No need to feel left out.
[quote][p][bold]NDevoto[/bold] wrote: Does this call to march to "residents" only include women? If so, how are those of us who have testicles to show our support? By staying out of the way?[/p][/quote]It says residents, not just women, so get yourself along and join in! And if so moved, you can now set about organising an event for International Men's Day. November 19 is the date. No need to feel left out. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 6

3:41pm Fri 7 Mar 14

SillyCnut says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Stella looks like she is singing her heart out, bless.
I guess your is the sort of patronising attitude she is campaigning about.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Stella looks like she is singing her heart out, bless.[/p][/quote]I guess your is the sort of patronising attitude she is campaigning about. SillyCnut
  • Score: 1

3:54pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Villagecranberry says...

SillyCnut wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Stella looks like she is singing her heart out, bless.
I guess your is the sort of patronising attitude she is campaigning about.
You are the patronising one with a swear word anagram name associated with the female genitalia, children read these pages, could you not think of something else?
[quote][p][bold]SillyCnut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Stella looks like she is singing her heart out, bless.[/p][/quote]I guess your is the sort of patronising attitude she is campaigning about.[/p][/quote]You are the patronising one with a swear word anagram name associated with the female genitalia, children read these pages, could you not think of something else? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -3

4:04pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
SillyCnut wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Stella looks like she is singing her heart out, bless.
I guess your is the sort of patronising attitude she is campaigning about.
You are the patronising one with a swear word anagram name associated with the female genitalia, children read these pages, could you not think of something else?
Time you went to Specsavers, cornbeefur.

Cnut is the original and correct form of Canute, and not the word with transposed letters that you appear to think it is.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SillyCnut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Stella looks like she is singing her heart out, bless.[/p][/quote]I guess your is the sort of patronising attitude she is campaigning about.[/p][/quote]You are the patronising one with a swear word anagram name associated with the female genitalia, children read these pages, could you not think of something else?[/p][/quote]Time you went to Specsavers, cornbeefur. Cnut is the original and correct form of Canute, and not the word with transposed letters that you appear to think it is. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 2

5:06pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Villagecranberry says...

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
SillyCnut wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Stella looks like she is singing her heart out, bless.
I guess your is the sort of patronising attitude she is campaigning about.
You are the patronising one with a swear word anagram name associated with the female genitalia, children read these pages, could you not think of something else?
Time you went to Specsavers, cornbeefur.

Cnut is the original and correct form of Canute, and not the word with transposed letters that you appear to think it is.
Tell all the youngsters who may read the pages on the site, I will wager they are not reading his name as 'Silly Canute'. Like many adults are not either.
[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SillyCnut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: Stella looks like she is singing her heart out, bless.[/p][/quote]I guess your is the sort of patronising attitude she is campaigning about.[/p][/quote]You are the patronising one with a swear word anagram name associated with the female genitalia, children read these pages, could you not think of something else?[/p][/quote]Time you went to Specsavers, cornbeefur. Cnut is the original and correct form of Canute, and not the word with transposed letters that you appear to think it is.[/p][/quote]Tell all the youngsters who may read the pages on the site, I will wager they are not reading his name as 'Silly Canute'. Like many adults are not either. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -1

1:22pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Techno3 says...

Great to see a celebration of the achievements of Mrs Pankhurst, ( a Conservative), in bringing about votes for women. This legislation, interestingly enough, was not actually brought in by Ms Creasy's poltical party, but by the Conservatives. Labour also failed to select the first female to be elected as a member of Parliament, the first female party leader (they have never had a female leader) or provide us with the first female Prime Minister. Still, it's a good day for some marching and posturing, Stella.
Great to see a celebration of the achievements of Mrs Pankhurst, ( a Conservative), in bringing about votes for women. This legislation, interestingly enough, was not actually brought in by Ms Creasy's poltical party, but by the Conservatives. Labour also failed to select the first female to be elected as a member of Parliament, the first female party leader (they have never had a female leader) or provide us with the first female Prime Minister. Still, it's a good day for some marching and posturing, Stella. Techno3
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Techno3 wrote:
Great to see a celebration of the achievements of Mrs Pankhurst, ( a Conservative), in bringing about votes for women. This legislation, interestingly enough, was not actually brought in by Ms Creasy's poltical party, but by the Conservatives. Labour also failed to select the first female to be elected as a member of Parliament, the first female party leader (they have never had a female leader) or provide us with the first female Prime Minister. Still, it's a good day for some marching and posturing, Stella.
Mrs Pankhurst joined the Conservative party not long before her death in 1928 because she was concerned about "Bolshevism". The first Representation of the People Act was passed in 1918 when Liberal David Lloyd George was PM. The second act reducing the voting age for women to 21 was passed soon after her death by a Conservative government.

Currently in Parliament, only 1 in 5 MPs is a woman. At a slightly rough count, just 46 are Conservative (the largest single party), 82 are Labour, 8 are Lib Dems and there is a handful of others.

Of the 369 women elected as MPs since 1918, 61 per cent (224) were or are Labour, 28 per cent (105) Conservative and 6 per cent (23) Liberal or Social Democrat or Lib Dem.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for any of the parties and a shameful performance by the Conservatives.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: Great to see a celebration of the achievements of Mrs Pankhurst, ( a Conservative), in bringing about votes for women. This legislation, interestingly enough, was not actually brought in by Ms Creasy's poltical party, but by the Conservatives. Labour also failed to select the first female to be elected as a member of Parliament, the first female party leader (they have never had a female leader) or provide us with the first female Prime Minister. Still, it's a good day for some marching and posturing, Stella.[/p][/quote]Mrs Pankhurst joined the Conservative party not long before her death in 1928 because she was concerned about "Bolshevism". The first Representation of the People Act was passed in 1918 when Liberal David Lloyd George was PM. The second act reducing the voting age for women to 21 was passed soon after her death by a Conservative government. Currently in Parliament, only 1 in 5 MPs is a woman. At a slightly rough count, just 46 are Conservative (the largest single party), 82 are Labour, 8 are Lib Dems and there is a handful of others. Of the 369 women elected as MPs since 1918, 61 per cent (224) were or are Labour, 28 per cent (105) Conservative and 6 per cent (23) Liberal or Social Democrat or Lib Dem. Hardly a ringing endorsement for any of the parties and a shameful performance by the Conservatives. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 4

2:36pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Techno3 says...

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Great to see a celebration of the achievements of Mrs Pankhurst, ( a Conservative), in bringing about votes for women. This legislation, interestingly enough, was not actually brought in by Ms Creasy's poltical party, but by the Conservatives. Labour also failed to select the first female to be elected as a member of Parliament, the first female party leader (they have never had a female leader) or provide us with the first female Prime Minister. Still, it's a good day for some marching and posturing, Stella.
Mrs Pankhurst joined the Conservative party not long before her death in 1928 because she was concerned about "Bolshevism". The first Representation of the People Act was passed in 1918 when Liberal David Lloyd George was PM. The second act reducing the voting age for women to 21 was passed soon after her death by a Conservative government.

Currently in Parliament, only 1 in 5 MPs is a woman. At a slightly rough count, just 46 are Conservative (the largest single party), 82 are Labour, 8 are Lib Dems and there is a handful of others.

Of the 369 women elected as MPs since 1918, 61 per cent (224) were or are Labour, 28 per cent (105) Conservative and 6 per cent (23) Liberal or Social Democrat or Lib Dem.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for any of the parties and a shameful performance by the Conservatives.
Thank you. Yes, there are two other parties which have a better record on votes for women than Labour, not just the one.

None of the parties is perfect on these issues, but at least some of them have done something rather than just postured about them. And as for the shame of Labour not being as bad as the tories, I expect we will all have our own measures of what is shameful. At the moment I think that having an all-woman shortlisting procedure which the Labour Party managed to manipulate in order to select a man - Jack Dromey, to be its Labour candidate - is my favourite example of how shamefully insincere and cynical that party's record on these issues actually is in practice.
[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: Great to see a celebration of the achievements of Mrs Pankhurst, ( a Conservative), in bringing about votes for women. This legislation, interestingly enough, was not actually brought in by Ms Creasy's poltical party, but by the Conservatives. Labour also failed to select the first female to be elected as a member of Parliament, the first female party leader (they have never had a female leader) or provide us with the first female Prime Minister. Still, it's a good day for some marching and posturing, Stella.[/p][/quote]Mrs Pankhurst joined the Conservative party not long before her death in 1928 because she was concerned about "Bolshevism". The first Representation of the People Act was passed in 1918 when Liberal David Lloyd George was PM. The second act reducing the voting age for women to 21 was passed soon after her death by a Conservative government. Currently in Parliament, only 1 in 5 MPs is a woman. At a slightly rough count, just 46 are Conservative (the largest single party), 82 are Labour, 8 are Lib Dems and there is a handful of others. Of the 369 women elected as MPs since 1918, 61 per cent (224) were or are Labour, 28 per cent (105) Conservative and 6 per cent (23) Liberal or Social Democrat or Lib Dem. Hardly a ringing endorsement for any of the parties and a shameful performance by the Conservatives.[/p][/quote]Thank you. Yes, there are two other parties which have a better record on votes for women than Labour, not just the one. None of the parties is perfect on these issues, but at least some of them have done something rather than just postured about them. And as for the shame of Labour not being as bad as the tories, I expect we will all have our own measures of what is shameful. At the moment I think that having an all-woman shortlisting procedure which the Labour Party managed to manipulate in order to select a man - Jack Dromey, to be its Labour candidate - is my favourite example of how shamefully insincere and cynical that party's record on these issues actually is in practice. Techno3
  • Score: -2

3:49pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population.

All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue.

Well. here are a few more facts.

Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919.

Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties.

From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day.

Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it.

Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the
wilderness... the 12 years before they had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928)

How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.
Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population. All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue. Well. here are a few more facts. Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919. Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties. From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day. Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it. Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the wilderness...[in] the 12 years before they [women] had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928) How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 6

5:17pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Techno3 says...

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population.

All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue.

Well. here are a few more facts.

Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919.

Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties.

From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day.

Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it.

Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the
wilderness... the 12 years before they had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928)

How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.
I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men.

The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on.

I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative
” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.
[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population. All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue. Well. here are a few more facts. Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919. Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties. From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day. Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it. Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the wilderness...[in] the 12 years before they [women] had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928) How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.[/p][/quote]I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men. The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on. I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative ” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies. Techno3
  • Score: -1

6:48pm Sat 8 Mar 14

mdj says...

Nancy Asquith?
Is this a composite character?

I'm a bit baffled how I go out and celebrate my 'diversity', which seems to be a popular buzzword in some quarters, but a bit obscure to many of us.
Can anybody help?
Nancy Asquith? Is this a composite character? I'm a bit baffled how I go out and celebrate my 'diversity', which seems to be a popular buzzword in some quarters, but a bit obscure to many of us. Can anybody help? mdj
  • Score: -4

7:36pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
Nancy Asquith?
Is this a composite character?

I'm a bit baffled how I go out and celebrate my 'diversity', which seems to be a popular buzzword in some quarters, but a bit obscure to many of us.
Can anybody help?
Which piece of the article requested you to do that exactly Mdj?
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Nancy Asquith? Is this a composite character? I'm a bit baffled how I go out and celebrate my 'diversity', which seems to be a popular buzzword in some quarters, but a bit obscure to many of us. Can anybody help?[/p][/quote]Which piece of the article requested you to do that exactly Mdj? Alan_1976
  • Score: 4

7:43pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Techno3 says...

mdj wrote:
Nancy Asquith?
Is this a composite character?

I'm a bit baffled how I go out and celebrate my 'diversity', which seems to be a popular buzzword in some quarters, but a bit obscure to many of us.
Can anybody help?
Diversity is a state of being 'diverse'. But for some reason, not a state of being diverse as individuals. Oh no. One can't be an individual. One can only be, in fact must only be diverse as part of a 'diverse community'.

Prefereably the 'dicerse community' will be one which can be measured in terms of how diverse it is and 'celebrated' as such. Which means everyone has to be categorised in some way to see which bit of the 'diverse community' one conforms to. Often this is categorisation takes place in terms of religious allegiances (or lack of them) or on racial lines or in terms of skin colour or nationality. Sometimes geographical origins are used. Or, a mixture of these can be used. Whatever categories are arbitrarily selected, though, there will also be an issue as to whether one is being co-operative enough in allowing yourself to be categorised.

Forms will be sent, requiring diverse individuals to tick boxes. People will then be checked to see if they have ticked the right boxes or enough boxes, and failureby a diverse individual to categorise his diversity properly in conformity with the arbitrary categories will be duly noted. People who do not manage to indicate enough conformity with these requirements may be considered insufficiently 'diverse'.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Nancy Asquith? Is this a composite character? I'm a bit baffled how I go out and celebrate my 'diversity', which seems to be a popular buzzword in some quarters, but a bit obscure to many of us. Can anybody help?[/p][/quote]Diversity is a state of being 'diverse'. But for some reason, not a state of being diverse as individuals. Oh no. One can't be an individual. One can only be, in fact must only be diverse as part of a 'diverse community'. Prefereably the 'dicerse community' will be one which can be measured in terms of how diverse it is and 'celebrated' as such. Which means everyone has to be categorised in some way to see which bit of the 'diverse community' one conforms to. Often this is categorisation takes place in terms of religious allegiances (or lack of them) or on racial lines or in terms of skin colour or nationality. Sometimes geographical origins are used. Or, a mixture of these can be used. Whatever categories are arbitrarily selected, though, there will also be an issue as to whether one is being co-operative enough in allowing yourself to be categorised. Forms will be sent, requiring diverse individuals to tick boxes. People will then be checked to see if they have ticked the right boxes or enough boxes, and failureby a diverse individual to categorise his diversity properly in conformity with the arbitrary categories will be duly noted. People who do not manage to indicate enough conformity with these requirements may be considered insufficiently 'diverse'. Techno3
  • Score: -2

7:45pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Alan_1976 says...

Techno3 wrote:
Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population.

All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue.

Well. here are a few more facts.

Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919.

Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties.

From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day.

Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it.

Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the
wilderness... the 12 years before they had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928)

How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.
I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men.

The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on.

I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative

” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.
Wow. When even the Telegraph points her deselection as being "fundamentally flawed" http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/politics
/conservative/106120
26/Dirty-tricks-snid
e-comments-and-hosti
le-letters-how-Tory-
MP-Anne-McIntosh-was
-ousted.html

How myopic in political beliefs do you have to be. As to her referring to herself as Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status?
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population. All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue. Well. here are a few more facts. Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919. Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties. From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day. Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it. Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the wilderness...[in] the 12 years before they [women] had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928) How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.[/p][/quote]I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men. The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on. I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative ” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.[/p][/quote]Wow. When even the Telegraph points her deselection as being "fundamentally flawed" http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/politics /conservative/106120 26/Dirty-tricks-snid e-comments-and-hosti le-letters-how-Tory- MP-Anne-McIntosh-was -ousted.html How myopic in political beliefs do you have to be. As to her referring to herself as Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status? Alan_1976
  • Score: 3

8:13pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Techno3 says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population.

All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue.

Well. here are a few more facts.

Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919.

Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties.

From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day.

Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it.

Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the
wilderness... the 12 years before they had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928)

How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.
I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men.

The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on.

I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative


” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.
Wow. When even the Telegraph points her deselection as being "fundamentally flawed" http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/news/politics

/conservative/106120

26/Dirty-tricks-snid

e-comments-and-hosti

le-letters-how-Tory-

MP-Anne-McIntosh-was

-ousted.html

How myopic in political beliefs do you have to be. As to her referring to herself as Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status?
It may or may not be flawed. That is the opinion of the group of people working at the paper, or maybe just a single editor at the Telegraph. I don't know. I don't take my opinions from the Telegraph, but if you wish to, that's your privilege. Did they say why it was flawed?

Flawed or not, we do know that the matter eventually came to a vote. I find it interesting that 560 people, who presumably share some of her poltical values and know who she and whether she is any good as an MP, is better than you or I, all got motivated enough to have a vote on whetther to deselect her and a majority decided to do so.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population. All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue. Well. here are a few more facts. Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919. Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties. From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day. Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it. Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the wilderness...[in] the 12 years before they [women] had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928) How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.[/p][/quote]I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men. The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on. I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative ” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.[/p][/quote]Wow. When even the Telegraph points her deselection as being "fundamentally flawed" http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/politics /conservative/106120 26/Dirty-tricks-snid e-comments-and-hosti le-letters-how-Tory- MP-Anne-McIntosh-was -ousted.html How myopic in political beliefs do you have to be. As to her referring to herself as Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status?[/p][/quote]It may or may not be flawed. That is the opinion of the group of people working at the paper, or maybe just a single editor at the Telegraph. I don't know. I don't take my opinions from the Telegraph, but if you wish to, that's your privilege. Did they say why it was flawed? Flawed or not, we do know that the matter eventually came to a vote. I find it interesting that 560 people, who presumably share some of her poltical values and know who she and whether she is any good as an MP, is better than you or I, all got motivated enough to have a vote on whetther to deselect her and a majority decided to do so. Techno3
  • Score: -3

8:17pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Techno3 says...

"Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status"

Because she wants to be? Some women do. Others don't. It is their choice.

She could have decided to be called Mrs or Ms, but she chose Miss.
"Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status" Because she wants to be? Some women do. Others don't. It is their choice. She could have decided to be called Mrs or Ms, but she chose Miss. Techno3
  • Score: -2

8:34pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Alan_1976 says...

Techno3 wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population.

All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue.

Well. here are a few more facts.

Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919.

Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties.

From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day.

Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it.

Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the
wilderness... the 12 years before they had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928)

How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.
I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men.

The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on.

I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative



” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.
Wow. When even the Telegraph points her deselection as being "fundamentally flawed" http://www.telegraph


.co.uk/news/politics


/conservative/106120


26/Dirty-tricks-snid


e-comments-and-hosti


le-letters-how-Tory-


MP-Anne-McIntosh-was


-ousted.html

How myopic in political beliefs do you have to be. As to her referring to herself as Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status?
It may or may not be flawed. That is the opinion of the group of people working at the paper, or maybe just a single editor at the Telegraph. I don't know. I don't take my opinions from the Telegraph, but if you wish to, that's your privilege. Did they say why it was flawed?

Flawed or not, we do know that the matter eventually came to a vote. I find it interesting that 560 people, who presumably share some of her poltical values and know who she and whether she is any good as an MP, is better than you or I, all got motivated enough to have a vote on whetther to deselect her and a majority decided to do so.
"Did they say why it is flawed"

Yes in the article. " internal party inquiry ordered by Conservative HQ"

Try reading articles. Not the opinion of the paper.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population. All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue. Well. here are a few more facts. Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919. Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties. From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day. Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it. Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the wilderness...[in] the 12 years before they [women] had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928) How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.[/p][/quote]I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men. The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on. I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative ” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.[/p][/quote]Wow. When even the Telegraph points her deselection as being "fundamentally flawed" http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/politics /conservative/106120 26/Dirty-tricks-snid e-comments-and-hosti le-letters-how-Tory- MP-Anne-McIntosh-was -ousted.html How myopic in political beliefs do you have to be. As to her referring to herself as Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status?[/p][/quote]It may or may not be flawed. That is the opinion of the group of people working at the paper, or maybe just a single editor at the Telegraph. I don't know. I don't take my opinions from the Telegraph, but if you wish to, that's your privilege. Did they say why it was flawed? Flawed or not, we do know that the matter eventually came to a vote. I find it interesting that 560 people, who presumably share some of her poltical values and know who she and whether she is any good as an MP, is better than you or I, all got motivated enough to have a vote on whetther to deselect her and a majority decided to do so.[/p][/quote]"Did they say why it is flawed" Yes in the article. " internal party inquiry ordered by Conservative HQ" Try reading articles. Not the opinion of the paper. Alan_1976
  • Score: 4

9:43pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Techno3 says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population.

All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue.

Well. here are a few more facts.

Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919.

Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties.

From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day.

Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it.

Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the
wilderness... the 12 years before they had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928)

How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.
I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men.

The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on.

I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative




” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.
Wow. When even the Telegraph points her deselection as being "fundamentally flawed" http://www.telegraph



.co.uk/news/politics



/conservative/106120



26/Dirty-tricks-snid



e-comments-and-hosti



le-letters-how-Tory-



MP-Anne-McIntosh-was



-ousted.html

How myopic in political beliefs do you have to be. As to her referring to herself as Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status?
It may or may not be flawed. That is the opinion of the group of people working at the paper, or maybe just a single editor at the Telegraph. I don't know. I don't take my opinions from the Telegraph, but if you wish to, that's your privilege. Did they say why it was flawed?

Flawed or not, we do know that the matter eventually came to a vote. I find it interesting that 560 people, who presumably share some of her poltical values and know who she and whether she is any good as an MP, is better than you or I, all got motivated enough to have a vote on whetther to deselect her and a majority decided to do so.
"Did they say why it is flawed"

Yes in the article. " internal party inquiry ordered by Conservative HQ"

Try reading articles. Not the opinion of the paper.
As I think I earlier, I condier that the choices of candidates put up by political parties are regularly and systematically manipulated in order to achieve outcomes which are satisfactory to the elite groups of party hacks which run those parties. I am not at all suprised that there are people at Conservative HQ who don't like a compliant MP being kicked out of their cushy safe seat by the votes and temerity of some of the lower-downs. To get back in touch with the theme of the article we are commenting beneath, none of this is evidence that this MP is a 'victim' of a plot to unseat her because she is female. In the absence of anything concrete to substantiate such a theory, it looks to me as if she has been kicked out (in a reasonably democratic manner) because people just don't like her or think she's good enough.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population. All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue. Well. here are a few more facts. Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919. Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties. From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day. Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it. Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the wilderness...[in] the 12 years before they [women] had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928) How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.[/p][/quote]I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men. The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on. I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative ” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.[/p][/quote]Wow. When even the Telegraph points her deselection as being "fundamentally flawed" http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/politics /conservative/106120 26/Dirty-tricks-snid e-comments-and-hosti le-letters-how-Tory- MP-Anne-McIntosh-was -ousted.html How myopic in political beliefs do you have to be. As to her referring to herself as Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status?[/p][/quote]It may or may not be flawed. That is the opinion of the group of people working at the paper, or maybe just a single editor at the Telegraph. I don't know. I don't take my opinions from the Telegraph, but if you wish to, that's your privilege. Did they say why it was flawed? Flawed or not, we do know that the matter eventually came to a vote. I find it interesting that 560 people, who presumably share some of her poltical values and know who she and whether she is any good as an MP, is better than you or I, all got motivated enough to have a vote on whetther to deselect her and a majority decided to do so.[/p][/quote]"Did they say why it is flawed" Yes in the article. " internal party inquiry ordered by Conservative HQ" Try reading articles. Not the opinion of the paper.[/p][/quote]As I think I earlier, I condier that the choices of candidates put up by political parties are regularly and systematically manipulated in order to achieve outcomes which are satisfactory to the elite groups of party hacks which run those parties. I am not at all suprised that there are people at Conservative HQ who don't like a compliant MP being kicked out of their cushy safe seat by the votes and temerity of some of the lower-downs. To get back in touch with the theme of the article we are commenting beneath, none of this is evidence that this MP is a 'victim' of a plot to unseat her because she is female. In the absence of anything concrete to substantiate such a theory, it looks to me as if she has been kicked out (in a reasonably democratic manner) because people just don't like her or think she's good enough. Techno3
  • Score: -3

10:03pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Alan_1976 says...

Techno3 wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population.

All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue.

Well. here are a few more facts.

Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919.

Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties.

From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day.

Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it.

Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the
wilderness... the 12 years before they had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928)

How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.
I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men.

The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on.

I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative





” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.
Wow. When even the Telegraph points her deselection as being "fundamentally flawed" http://www.telegraph




.co.uk/news/politics




/conservative/106120




26/Dirty-tricks-snid




e-comments-and-hosti




le-letters-how-Tory-




MP-Anne-McIntosh-was




-ousted.html

How myopic in political beliefs do you have to be. As to her referring to herself as Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status?
It may or may not be flawed. That is the opinion of the group of people working at the paper, or maybe just a single editor at the Telegraph. I don't know. I don't take my opinions from the Telegraph, but if you wish to, that's your privilege. Did they say why it was flawed?

Flawed or not, we do know that the matter eventually came to a vote. I find it interesting that 560 people, who presumably share some of her poltical values and know who she and whether she is any good as an MP, is better than you or I, all got motivated enough to have a vote on whetther to deselect her and a majority decided to do so.
"Did they say why it is flawed"

Yes in the article. " internal party inquiry ordered by Conservative HQ"

Try reading articles. Not the opinion of the paper.
As I think I earlier, I condier that the choices of candidates put up by political parties are regularly and systematically manipulated in order to achieve outcomes which are satisfactory to the elite groups of party hacks which run those parties. I am not at all suprised that there are people at Conservative HQ who don't like a compliant MP being kicked out of their cushy safe seat by the votes and temerity of some of the lower-downs. To get back in touch with the theme of the article we are commenting beneath, none of this is evidence that this MP is a 'victim' of a plot to unseat her because she is female. In the absence of anything concrete to substantiate such a theory, it looks to me as if she has been kicked out (in a reasonably democratic manner) because people just don't like her or think she's good enough.
As you showed earlier you're quite happy to voice opinions and indeed base them on items that you have failed to read still. The next line from the article in question?

"This found that the local executive committee broke the rules by co-opting a large number of new members on to the association’s executive board, just weeks before it voted in January 2013 not to reselect Miss McIntosh for the 2015 general election."

So either you didn't bother to read the article before pontificating or you did and are all in favour of gerrymandering of votes.

Good to see what your definition of a "reasonably democratic manner" is.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Techno3, this isn't really about which political party is better than another, since I don't support any particular party, but about how poorly women are represented in Westminster in spite of forming at least half of the population. All I did was quote you some indisputable facts as an antidote to your attempt to prove that the Tories are the most forward-looking on this issue. Well. here are a few more facts. Nancy, Viscount Asquith (Con) wasn't actually the first woman elected to parliament (in 1919). That was Constance, Countess Markievicz who was elected for Sinn Fein in 1918 but was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took up her seat. In fact she became the first female member of the Irish Dail when it was first convened in 1919. Between 1919 and 1929, there was a smattering of women MPs from all three main parties. From 1929 onwards, it was Labour which saw by far the most female MPs elected, long before all-women shortlists were considered, and that has continued to this day. Now if it now takes all-women shortlists to get the balance of female representation in parliament to a sensible level, so be it. Here's a quote from Nancy Asquith for you to chew on: “When I stood up and asked questions affecting women and children, social and moral questions, I used to be shouted at for five or 10 minutes at a time. That was when they thought that I was rather a freak, a voice crying in the wilderness...[in] the 12 years before they [women] had the vote, there were only five measures passed dealing with women and with things affecting women and children. From 1918 onwards, we have had 20 Measures passed affecting women and children.” (1928) How depressing it is that in this day and age, the same attitudes to women MPs still prevail in certain quarters, summed up in the deselection last month of Anne McIntosh, the serving Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, by a dirty tricks campaign co-ordinated by men in her constituency where some of those "loyal" Tories wrote her off as "a silly girl" in spite of her excellent parliamentary record.[/p][/quote]I agree, women are poorly represented. So, ironically enough, are men. The trouble is, the political parties have such a lock on the election processes that whether a man or a woman, unless a candidate is a hack in the mould of all the other dreary hacks in their particular party, they have little chance of being elected. The parties manipulate the whole system as much as they can, which tends to ensure that the same old elite faces replicate themselves every time. (Similar processes occur in local government contextx as well). My example of Dromey being selected on an all-women list despite being a man is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on. I don't know of Anne McIntosh particularly or exactly why she was given the boot (each voter would have made their own decisions) , but I did look her up as you have mentioned her. 560 people voted on whether to keep her as their candidate for MP next time and a majority decided they didn't want her. She calls herself Miss McIntosh, though she is actually married, and was only the fourth Conservative MP to be deselected by a membership ballot in the past 25 years. Maybe more detailedcomplaints circulated internally, but to the public the accusations are vague. She was accused of being “divisive”, “non-communicative ” and “bad-mannered”. She attracted controversy last year by saying that the increasing the number of women doctors would place a burden on the NHS, as many would marry, have children and leave the health service. It is a matter of opinion as to whether she is a 'silly' woman or not, but I suspect you might not have to be a mysogynist to think she is. As for a record in Parliament being 'excellent', what MPs consider excellent may not amount to much: MPs who never think for themselves and always walk through the lobbies as told by the party whips may well be considered 'excellent' but might in fact be doing a fat lot of good for anyone in their own constituencies.[/p][/quote]Wow. When even the Telegraph points her deselection as being "fundamentally flawed" http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/politics /conservative/106120 26/Dirty-tricks-snid e-comments-and-hosti le-letters-how-Tory- MP-Anne-McIntosh-was -ousted.html How myopic in political beliefs do you have to be. As to her referring to herself as Miss versus Mrs why should a woman be defined by her marital status?[/p][/quote]It may or may not be flawed. That is the opinion of the group of people working at the paper, or maybe just a single editor at the Telegraph. I don't know. I don't take my opinions from the Telegraph, but if you wish to, that's your privilege. Did they say why it was flawed? Flawed or not, we do know that the matter eventually came to a vote. I find it interesting that 560 people, who presumably share some of her poltical values and know who she and whether she is any good as an MP, is better than you or I, all got motivated enough to have a vote on whetther to deselect her and a majority decided to do so.[/p][/quote]"Did they say why it is flawed" Yes in the article. " internal party inquiry ordered by Conservative HQ" Try reading articles. Not the opinion of the paper.[/p][/quote]As I think I earlier, I condier that the choices of candidates put up by political parties are regularly and systematically manipulated in order to achieve outcomes which are satisfactory to the elite groups of party hacks which run those parties. I am not at all suprised that there are people at Conservative HQ who don't like a compliant MP being kicked out of their cushy safe seat by the votes and temerity of some of the lower-downs. To get back in touch with the theme of the article we are commenting beneath, none of this is evidence that this MP is a 'victim' of a plot to unseat her because she is female. In the absence of anything concrete to substantiate such a theory, it looks to me as if she has been kicked out (in a reasonably democratic manner) because people just don't like her or think she's good enough.[/p][/quote]As you showed earlier you're quite happy to voice opinions and indeed base them on items that you have failed to read still. The next line from the article in question? "This found that the local executive committee broke the rules by co-opting a large number of new members on to the association’s executive board, just weeks before it voted in January 2013 not to reselect Miss McIntosh for the 2015 general election." So either you didn't bother to read the article before pontificating or you did and are all in favour of gerrymandering of votes. Good to see what your definition of a "reasonably democratic manner" is. Alan_1976
  • Score: 6

10:07pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Alan_1976 says...

Techno3 wrote:
mdj wrote:
Nancy Asquith?
Is this a composite character?

I'm a bit baffled how I go out and celebrate my 'diversity', which seems to be a popular buzzword in some quarters, but a bit obscure to many of us.
Can anybody help?
Diversity is a state of being 'diverse'. But for some reason, not a state of being diverse as individuals. Oh no. One can't be an individual. One can only be, in fact must only be diverse as part of a 'diverse community'.

Prefereably the 'dicerse community' will be one which can be measured in terms of how diverse it is and 'celebrated' as such. Which means everyone has to be categorised in some way to see which bit of the 'diverse community' one conforms to. Often this is categorisation takes place in terms of religious allegiances (or lack of them) or on racial lines or in terms of skin colour or nationality. Sometimes geographical origins are used. Or, a mixture of these can be used. Whatever categories are arbitrarily selected, though, there will also be an issue as to whether one is being co-operative enough in allowing yourself to be categorised.

Forms will be sent, requiring diverse individuals to tick boxes. People will then be checked to see if they have ticked the right boxes or enough boxes, and failureby a diverse individual to categorise his diversity properly in conformity with the arbitrary categories will be duly noted. People who do not manage to indicate enough conformity with these requirements may be considered insufficiently 'diverse'.
"Celebrate the talent and diversity" is what the article says and refers to a multiple as in multiple people.

But by all means stand up some straw men to knock down. Why bother again with the facts.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Nancy Asquith? Is this a composite character? I'm a bit baffled how I go out and celebrate my 'diversity', which seems to be a popular buzzword in some quarters, but a bit obscure to many of us. Can anybody help?[/p][/quote]Diversity is a state of being 'diverse'. But for some reason, not a state of being diverse as individuals. Oh no. One can't be an individual. One can only be, in fact must only be diverse as part of a 'diverse community'. Prefereably the 'dicerse community' will be one which can be measured in terms of how diverse it is and 'celebrated' as such. Which means everyone has to be categorised in some way to see which bit of the 'diverse community' one conforms to. Often this is categorisation takes place in terms of religious allegiances (or lack of them) or on racial lines or in terms of skin colour or nationality. Sometimes geographical origins are used. Or, a mixture of these can be used. Whatever categories are arbitrarily selected, though, there will also be an issue as to whether one is being co-operative enough in allowing yourself to be categorised. Forms will be sent, requiring diverse individuals to tick boxes. People will then be checked to see if they have ticked the right boxes or enough boxes, and failureby a diverse individual to categorise his diversity properly in conformity with the arbitrary categories will be duly noted. People who do not manage to indicate enough conformity with these requirements may be considered insufficiently 'diverse'.[/p][/quote]"Celebrate the talent and diversity" is what the article says and refers to a multiple as in multiple people. But by all means stand up some straw men to knock down. Why bother again with the facts. Alan_1976
  • Score: 3

10:49pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Helen, Walthamstow says...

mdj wrote:
Nancy Asquith?
Is this a composite character?

I'm a bit baffled how I go out and celebrate my 'diversity', which seems to be a popular buzzword in some quarters, but a bit obscure to many of us.
Can anybody help?
Apologies, mdj. I of course meant Nancy Astor. That's what comes of watching a TV programme featuring Asquith.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Nancy Asquith? Is this a composite character? I'm a bit baffled how I go out and celebrate my 'diversity', which seems to be a popular buzzword in some quarters, but a bit obscure to many of us. Can anybody help?[/p][/quote]Apologies, mdj. I of course meant Nancy Astor. That's what comes of watching a TV programme featuring Asquith. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 1

11:13pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Techno3, I've just seen on Twitter the Conservative poster that featured the "we did it" arguments that you quoted earlier in the thread and started this section of the debate.

I hope you don't try using it at any elections because, as the hard facts above show, the party's achievements generally in the field of women's parliamentary representation have fallen lamentably short of what is desirable in this day and age. I for one will regard such claims of support for women in public life as hollow until there are many more women on the Tory benches and in any Tory cabinet.
Techno3, I've just seen on Twitter the Conservative poster that featured the "we did it" arguments that you quoted earlier in the thread and started this section of the debate. I hope you don't try using it at any elections because, as the hard facts above show, the party's achievements generally in the field of women's parliamentary representation have fallen lamentably short of what is desirable in this day and age. I for one will regard such claims of support for women in public life as hollow until there are many more women on the Tory benches and in any Tory cabinet. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 3

8:57am Sun 9 Mar 14

Villagecranberry says...

Emily Pankhurst deserves a more prominent memorial than behind bushes surrounded by rusty railings and should be up on Woodford Green near the Churchill statue in my opinion.
Emily Pankhurst deserves a more prominent memorial than behind bushes surrounded by rusty railings and should be up on Woodford Green near the Churchill statue in my opinion. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -1

7:07pm Sun 9 Mar 14

mdj says...

'Walthamstow’s Wonderful Women Walk will celebrate the talent and diversity of local women..'

..and a nice day they had for it, too!

But I'm still neither wiser nor better informed on this point, Alan. Is diversity just something women do, or have?
'Walthamstow’s Wonderful Women Walk will celebrate the talent and diversity of local women..' ..and a nice day they had for it, too! But I'm still neither wiser nor better informed on this point, Alan. Is diversity just something women do, or have? mdj
  • Score: -3

7:57pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Techno3 says...

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Techno3, I've just seen on Twitter the Conservative poster that featured the "we did it" arguments that you quoted earlier in the thread and started this section of the debate.

I hope you don't try using it at any elections because, as the hard facts above show, the party's achievements generally in the field of women's parliamentary representation have fallen lamentably short of what is desirable in this day and age. I for one will regard such claims of support for women in public life as hollow until there are many more women on the Tory benches and in any Tory cabinet.
Hi Helen,

I have no idea why you would think I would use such information in 'any elections'as I am not actually a conservative. I do, however, recognise the difference between genuine milestones passed where equality is concerned and a load of hot air from non-achievers, be they in the Labour Party, the Scottish Nationalists or anywhere else. I abhor numbers games.

As for the relative numbers of the bums on seats which the various parties have managed to adorn the green benches with, I also feel there should be more women in Parliament, but I think it more respectful and desirable to consider a woman's merits based on what she does rather than merely whether she has filled any mythical quotas on a party's front bench. There have been some great women MPs over the years, but sadly, among some of the women whose presence in parliament is seen as such a step forward by the 'celebrate diversity' crowd have also been lamentable individuals whose mediocre examples I would hope no-one would wish followed by either women or men. There are many recent examples: the dodgy Tessa Jowell, the tax hypocrite Margaret Hode and the trougher Hazel Blears spring readily to mind .

Celebrating such womens' presence there and others of their ilk as some kind of an achievement - merely because they make up the numbers- to out-shine the contributions to our national life of women like Margaret Thatcher or such other principled and trail-blazing characters as Bernadette Devlin or Betty Boothroyd, who actually achieved something valuable for us all is, to my mind, rather silly.
[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: Techno3, I've just seen on Twitter the Conservative poster that featured the "we did it" arguments that you quoted earlier in the thread and started this section of the debate. I hope you don't try using it at any elections because, as the hard facts above show, the party's achievements generally in the field of women's parliamentary representation have fallen lamentably short of what is desirable in this day and age. I for one will regard such claims of support for women in public life as hollow until there are many more women on the Tory benches and in any Tory cabinet.[/p][/quote]Hi Helen, I have no idea why you would think I would use such information in 'any elections'as I am not actually a conservative. I do, however, recognise the difference between genuine milestones passed where equality is concerned and a load of hot air from non-achievers, be they in the Labour Party, the Scottish Nationalists or anywhere else. I abhor numbers games. As for the relative numbers of the bums on seats which the various parties have managed to adorn the green benches with, I also feel there should be more women in Parliament, but I think it more respectful and desirable to consider a woman's merits based on what she does rather than merely whether she has filled any mythical quotas on a party's front bench. There have been some great women MPs over the years, but sadly, among some of the women whose presence in parliament is seen as such a step forward by the 'celebrate diversity' crowd have also been lamentable individuals whose mediocre examples I would hope no-one would wish followed by either women or men. There are many recent examples: the dodgy Tessa Jowell, the tax hypocrite Margaret Hode and the trougher Hazel Blears spring readily to mind . Celebrating such womens' presence there and others of their ilk as some kind of an achievement - merely because they make up the numbers- to out-shine the contributions to our national life of women like Margaret Thatcher or such other principled and trail-blazing characters as Bernadette Devlin or Betty Boothroyd, who actually achieved something valuable for us all is, to my mind, rather silly. Techno3
  • Score: -4

11:03pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Techno3 wrote:
Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Techno3, I've just seen on Twitter the Conservative poster that featured the "we did it" arguments that you quoted earlier in the thread and started this section of the debate.

I hope you don't try using it at any elections because, as the hard facts above show, the party's achievements generally in the field of women's parliamentary representation have fallen lamentably short of what is desirable in this day and age. I for one will regard such claims of support for women in public life as hollow until there are many more women on the Tory benches and in any Tory cabinet.
Hi Helen,

I have no idea why you would think I would use such information in 'any elections'as I am not actually a conservative. I do, however, recognise the difference between genuine milestones passed where equality is concerned and a load of hot air from non-achievers, be they in the Labour Party, the Scottish Nationalists or anywhere else. I abhor numbers games.

As for the relative numbers of the bums on seats which the various parties have managed to adorn the green benches with, I also feel there should be more women in Parliament, but I think it more respectful and desirable to consider a woman's merits based on what she does rather than merely whether she has filled any mythical quotas on a party's front bench. There have been some great women MPs over the years, but sadly, among some of the women whose presence in parliament is seen as such a step forward by the 'celebrate diversity' crowd have also been lamentable individuals whose mediocre examples I would hope no-one would wish followed by either women or men. There are many recent examples: the dodgy Tessa Jowell, the tax hypocrite Margaret Hode and the trougher Hazel Blears spring readily to mind .

Celebrating such womens' presence there and others of their ilk as some kind of an achievement - merely because they make up the numbers- to out-shine the contributions to our national life of women like Margaret Thatcher or such other principled and trail-blazing characters as Bernadette Devlin or Betty Boothroyd, who actually achieved something valuable for us all is, to my mind, rather silly.
What a pathetic load of bluster, Techno3!

Naming a few Labour women who don't stand up to your particular standards is "rather silly", to quote your words.

I won't waste my time listing the armies of male MPs whose behaviour in this parliament alone has been shameful. Just don't pretend they don't exist.

I'm sorry you don't want to play the numbers game . Too bad, because the numbers speak for themselves.

In the 96 years since the first woman was elected, the total number of female MPs stands at barely three-quarters of the total number of male MPs in this parliament alone. To make that simple for you, there have been 369 women MPs all together. There are around 530 men sitting in the current parliament. And if they're all there on "the merits of what they do", I'll eat my hat.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: Techno3, I've just seen on Twitter the Conservative poster that featured the "we did it" arguments that you quoted earlier in the thread and started this section of the debate. I hope you don't try using it at any elections because, as the hard facts above show, the party's achievements generally in the field of women's parliamentary representation have fallen lamentably short of what is desirable in this day and age. I for one will regard such claims of support for women in public life as hollow until there are many more women on the Tory benches and in any Tory cabinet.[/p][/quote]Hi Helen, I have no idea why you would think I would use such information in 'any elections'as I am not actually a conservative. I do, however, recognise the difference between genuine milestones passed where equality is concerned and a load of hot air from non-achievers, be they in the Labour Party, the Scottish Nationalists or anywhere else. I abhor numbers games. As for the relative numbers of the bums on seats which the various parties have managed to adorn the green benches with, I also feel there should be more women in Parliament, but I think it more respectful and desirable to consider a woman's merits based on what she does rather than merely whether she has filled any mythical quotas on a party's front bench. There have been some great women MPs over the years, but sadly, among some of the women whose presence in parliament is seen as such a step forward by the 'celebrate diversity' crowd have also been lamentable individuals whose mediocre examples I would hope no-one would wish followed by either women or men. There are many recent examples: the dodgy Tessa Jowell, the tax hypocrite Margaret Hode and the trougher Hazel Blears spring readily to mind . Celebrating such womens' presence there and others of their ilk as some kind of an achievement - merely because they make up the numbers- to out-shine the contributions to our national life of women like Margaret Thatcher or such other principled and trail-blazing characters as Bernadette Devlin or Betty Boothroyd, who actually achieved something valuable for us all is, to my mind, rather silly.[/p][/quote]What a pathetic load of bluster, Techno3! Naming a few Labour women who don't stand up to your particular standards is "rather silly", to quote your words. I won't waste my time listing the armies of male MPs whose behaviour in this parliament alone has been shameful. Just don't pretend they don't exist. I'm sorry you don't want to play the numbers game . Too bad, because the numbers speak for themselves. In the 96 years since the first woman was elected, the total number of female MPs stands at barely three-quarters of the total number of male MPs in this parliament alone. To make that simple for you, there have been 369 women MPs all together. There are around 530 men sitting in the current parliament. And if they're all there on "the merits of what they do", I'll eat my hat. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 2

9:49am Mon 10 Mar 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
'Walthamstow’s Wonderful Women Walk will celebrate the talent and diversity of local women..'

..and a nice day they had for it, too!

But I'm still neither wiser nor better informed on this point, Alan. Is diversity just something women do, or have?
Diversity - "the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization"

One would safely assume that having a march that celebrates women as equal citizens should seek to share that equality across women from all cultural backgrounds. As we know there are certain cultures that do not have such an enlightened view of women's standing in society. Perhaps the original article mentioned something about that? Oh yes it did...

"What I’m doing with this march is being an advocate for all the women that we’re not hearing from, to try and encourage them to support each other, to come forward, and for men to see how important it would be for everyone if we did that.”"

As stated multiple times the march was not a women only event but it would be a little hard to celebrate the diversity of the male members of the female dwellers of Walthamstow given their count of zero.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'Walthamstow’s Wonderful Women Walk will celebrate the talent and diversity of local women..' ..and a nice day they had for it, too! But I'm still neither wiser nor better informed on this point, Alan. Is diversity just something women do, or have?[/p][/quote]Diversity - "the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization" One would safely assume that having a march that celebrates women as equal citizens should seek to share that equality across women from all cultural backgrounds. As we know there are certain cultures that do not have such an enlightened view of women's standing in society. Perhaps the original article mentioned something about that? Oh yes it did... "What I’m doing with this march is being an advocate for all the women that we’re not hearing from, to try and encourage them to support each other, to come forward, and for men to see how important it would be for everyone if we did that.”" As stated multiple times the march was not a women only event but it would be a little hard to celebrate the diversity of the male members of the female dwellers of Walthamstow given their count of zero. Alan_1976
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree