<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Horsell&#039;s Mouth &#187; Jonathan Sheppard</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com/tag/jonathan-sheppard/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com</link>
	<description>Politics, pedantry and personal interests</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:14:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Pragmatism not principle</title>
		<link>http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com/2009/10/pragmatism-not-principle/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com/2009/10/pragmatism-not-principle/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:09:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ConservativeHome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Cameron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Sheppard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nadine Dorries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tory Radio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women in Parliament]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com/?p=471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have had a number of discussions with Conservatives about all women shortlists and I seem to be about the only person welcoming DC&#8217;s words yesterday. Look, I don&#8217;t like the idea of AWS. Like everyone else, I think it smacks of discrimination. But people like Nadine Dorries, arguing on ConHome that AWS leads to &#8220;two-tier&#8221; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<div class="topsy_widget_data topsy_theme_blue" style="float: right;margin-left: 0.75em; background: url(data:,%7B%20%22url%22%3A%20%22http%253A%252F%252Fwww.thehorsellsmouth.com%252F2009%252F10%252Fpragmatism-not-principle%252F%22%2C%20%22style%22%3A%20%22big%22%2C%20%22title%22%3A%20%22Pragmatism%20not%20principle%22%20%7D);"></div>
<div id="attachment_472" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 243px"><img class="size-full wp-image-472" title="Daily Mail - Features" src="http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/NadineDorries21.jpg" alt="Nadine Dorries - I'm a big fan but she's wrong on AWS" width="233" height="360" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Nadine Dorries - I&#39;m a big fan but she&#39;s wrong on AWS</p></div>
<p>I have had a number of discussions with <strong>Conservatives</strong> about <strong>all women shortlists</strong> and I seem to be about the only person welcoming <strong>DC&#8217;s</strong> words yesterday.</p>
<p>Look, I don&#8217;t like the idea of <strong>AWS</strong>. Like everyone else, I think it smacks of <strong>discrimination</strong>. But people like <a href="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2009/10/nadine-dorries-mp-explains-her-fear-that-allwomen-shortlists-will-create-two-classes-of-conservative.html"><strong>Nadine Dorries</strong></a>, arguing on <strong>ConHome</strong> that AWS leads to &#8220;two-tier&#8221; female MPs and <strong>Jonathan Sheppard</strong> of <a href="http://www.toryradio.com/"><strong>Tory Radio</strong></a>, with whom I had a good discussion on <strong>Twitter</strong> yesterday, are missing the point.</p>
<p><strong>Nadine</strong> argues that she got in without the need for AWS and that with only <strong>30% of applications from women</strong>, <strong>only 30% wanted to be MPs</strong>. Not only is this statistically <strong>complete nonsense</strong>, it is also a judgement she is hardly in a position to make. <em>I&#8217;m a big fan of hers but on this one she&#8217;s wrong</em>.</p>
<p>Moreover, even if we were happy with 30% of the parliamentary party being female (that would do for a start!) we currently have <strong>nine percent</strong> and with only around 25% of candidates female <em>we are not even selecting the proportion of those applying</em>.</p>
<p><strong>Jonathan</strong> and others believe the answer is to <strong>encourage more women to apply</strong>. Agreed. But that still doesn&#8217; t solve the problem of them being selected by association members &#8211; male and female - which itself is probably linked to <strong>why they don&#8217;t apply in the first place</strong>. They think the <strong>Conservative Party</strong> is a <strong>male-dominated environment</strong>. They think their <strong>chances of selection</strong> in a winnable seat are <strong>small</strong> and they think that even if successful, they will have a <strong>small number of female colleagues</strong>. Look at the evidence &#8211; <em>is this an unreasonable view</em>?</p>
<p>So if we want women to apply to the party, we have to show that we are prepared to select them in <strong>winnable areas</strong>. We have to show that we are looking to provide a more <strong>women-friendly environment</strong> and we have to show that in parliament, successful candidates will have a <strong>proportional mix of people with whom to work</strong>. By saying that our paucity of females in Parliament is the <strong>fault of women</strong> themselves for not applying is a <strong>grotesque abdication of the reality</strong>.</p>
<p>AWS is the unfortunate consequence of <strong>years of inaction</strong> on this issue. We can all pull out exceptions to the rule &#8211; Baroness Thatcher etc &#8211; but I&#8217;m surprised that <strong>Nadine Dorries</strong> believes that pulling up the ladder to others just because she managed to clamber aboard benefits <strong>women</strong> or the <strong>Conservative Party</strong>.</p>
<p>Why is it we are bothered about women &#8220;only getting the job because they are a woman&#8221;? Does it not occur to people that many, many male MPs only got selected because they went to the <strong>right school or</strong> <strong>university</strong>, worked at the <strong>right companies</strong>, were <strong>central office wonks</strong>, <strong>advisors</strong> or <strong>former leaders of local authorities</strong>? We tolerate this discreet favouritism yet condemn positive action. <em>It&#8217;s dreadful and sexist</em>.</p>
<p>The fact is that <strong>the party needs its talented women in Parliament</strong> and if local associations won&#8217;t select them <strong>their hands need to be forced</strong>. As ever, the AWS women in Parliament will need to work <strong>twice as hard</strong> to prove themselves. <em>But how condescending for us just to assume that they are not up to it</em>.</p>

]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thehorsellsmouth.com/2009/10/pragmatism-not-principle/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
