Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Deselecting women
Mark Devenport comments on Roy Beggs and Basil McCrea’s speeches yesterday, the latter of which pointed out that the DUP and Sinn Fein actually deselected sitting female MLAs for the 07 election.
Michael Shilliday @ 03:10 PM
Pathetic attempt to dodge the 100% pale,male and stale UUP representation at Stormont.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:25 PMThe UUP’s argument is that women should be selected for candidacy on merit and not through a quota.
Fair enough. But doesn’t that mean that the UUP is admitting that it hasn’t got any women in the party worth putting forward?
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:27 PMMichael,
Are you sure you want to be highlighting this debate? It might carry a little more weight if it didn’t come from a party which doesn’t have any female Assembly Members and didn’t deselect any because they didn’t have any to get rid of!Lets remember too - the UUP ran a grand total of ONE female candidate in the election..... Hardly a glowing endorsement of your selection process either. All parties have their failures, but some are just in a worse position than others to criticise.
Basil McCrea also managed to break normal parliamentary protocol by having a pop at others and making controversial remarks in a maiden speech.
All in all Michael and his mates still think it was a good day. Really does say something about how p*ss poor a state your party is.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:30 PMProblems don’t solve themselves, and dont do so overnight. All parties have a problem with women putting themselves forward, the UUP simply finds itself worse off than the others in that particular regard. And it has to be admitted that the other parties have delt with the problem well, while we lag behind for now.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:35 PM“...50% of people out there have no interest in politics, and the other 50% believe that they were conned over the past four or five weeks.”
Nice of Bazza to admit that the UUP is clearly part of the con act---since, by definition, the “other 50%” includes people who voted for his party.
“It does not matter who is selected because the vote is a vote for the party. It is therefore difficult to understand why the gender of candidates is important.”
Yes indeed, another stirring argument in favour of more women candidates!
As for his views on “selection on merit”!!!! One middle-aged woman in North Down as the sole female UUP candidate. A bunch of elderly duffers elsewhere. Not one getting in on the first count. The vote collapsing around them. Bazza running his own show in Lagan Valley and ignoring his running mates. Oh yes indeed...merit played a great part in the UUP selection process.
For someone who likes to portray himself as the great future hope of the UUP this was a fairly dismal performance from Bazza.
As Ooops noted, “are you sure you want to be highlighting this debate”?
Apart from that fluffery it was a fairly dismal day up at Stormont yesterday. Power has been returned to their hands and this is all they think worthy of debate.
Then promises to review rates and dole out free prescriptions to counterbalance the awarding of extra office costs to themselves ("But no,” they protest, “that was Hain’s doing") and the recommendation in a few days time that they should increase their salaries.
I despair. What a shower of self-serving, empty-headed tossers our MLAs are.
Porlock
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:51 PMMichael, look it’s pathetic no ifs and or buts about it, the UUP had an opportunity to select more women onto the officer team and didn’t. New spokesmanship’s were announced yesterday: no women. Marion Smith, Hermon, Paula Bradshaw, Sonia Copeland, etc, etc...it’s not like we don’t have any.
i think truthfully we are running out of excuses.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:52 PMIn all fairness the opportunity was for one more woman on the officers, and she came closer than most people do on a first attempt.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:56 PMthis is true. But not close enough obviously. I think it’s one thing to say we are working at it and currently lagging behind, but the few we already have and who are interested are currently ignored.We can’t have it both ways.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 04:01 PMI think if the election had been STV Sonia would have got in on my transfers, but it wasn’t.
I think that ignored is a little strong. There are some problems that can be fixed pretty easily in the review, but a lot of it is cultural in our party, and I do not necessarily mean male chauvanism.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 04:06 PMGiven the calibre of male candidates elected by the UUP, the likes of Roy Beggs etc, it’s a double insult for the party’s womenfolk. If they can’t best these boys in the selection process, they’re a pretty poor look out.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 04:41 PMAt least they had women to de-select!
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 05:01 PMThe UUP have a brass neck. SF provide 44% of all the female MLAs and they comprise 29% of their team.
Certainly beats the UUP’s 0% in both categories. Bunch of jokers.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:22 PMThis is really poor stuff from a party that has the worst record on female participation in a political party. Seriously what was the merit in posting this just to attract all these negative comments?? Well done Michael, Basil and Roy
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:34 PMWhat would be the point in ignoring the problem? We know we have a problem, and we know we have to fix it. The point is that all parties have a problem, and that every party has its own horror stories to one degree or another.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:42 PMThe point is the UUP are the worst offenders and your, Basil and Roy’s attempts to shift focus elsewhere was utterly ridiculous so you are experiencing the pointed finger and laughs.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:52 PMWhat was this nonsense that Basic McCrea came out with that Lady Hermon didn’t want to run as an MLA and they can’t be blamed for that. Is there no other women in the UUP?
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:58 PMDairmaid,
Their bizarre point is there are other women but not a single one is of a sufficient caliber to be considered for elected office. The UUP seems to think this shows they are serious about the issue unlike other parties.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 07:02 PMIt is def a serious issue and the UUP have some brass neck trying to point out the others failures when they are rock bottom of the league. It’s akin to Watford telling Man Utd they let too many goals in last week. (In relation to West Ham, ironically Watford probably would have thought this) But whats the solution?? Surley quality should count more than numbers? look at the executive when women do enter politics they do seem to achieve. When quality comes through it shines and mainly when women come through the political system they are encouraged to keep going. I think the problem is not electing more women but recruiting more capable women into politics who will be an asset to their respective parties when they seek and become elected representatives. Would certainly add quality rather than just mere quantity.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 07:11 PMHere are the stats.
While it makes the UUP spin stand out starkly it also shows that regardless of the deselection nonsense SF actually returned 6 new female MLAs far more than the single deselected candidate.
SF, Alliance, the SDLP and the PUP are the only parties that perform anywhere near well but have a lot more work to do.
Unionism’s performance was embarrassing but the UUP’s is laughable.
Unionism blocking intensive work on the issue indicates we shouldn’t expect any improvement from them.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 07:16 PMThe PUP have a lot more work to do on getting women into the Assembly?
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 07:24 PMThis once again represents the poor showing of the UUP.
What a state that Party is in!
Boy aren’t we all glad they’re no longer in control… oh the relief!
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 07:28 PMBoy aren’t we all glad they’re no longer in control… oh the relief!
Yea to think they might as well have lead us into a forced coalition with Martin McGuinness.
But then again, no ones really in control anymore are they, cus whatever Papa Doc does he will have to pass it with Marty’s people first…
Smash Sinn Fein Indeed.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 09:09 PMFYU,
You can’t get away from the substance of this story. Your party tried to spin it in the Assembly, Michael tried it here.
This story is about women in politics and how the UUP haven’t while spouting crap on the topic.
Deflection is futile. You shone the light on yourselves. Now experience the pointed finger and laughs, spinning won’t work.
0% is 0%.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 09:45 PMOk SS,
If you actually read what I said you would have seen that I avoided the main point of this thread, mainly because I have very little to say about it, but I’ll let you keep your halo shining…
Well erm I don’t think it to be a party problem as in a problem that needs urgently addressed by the internal leadership, for unlike SF, we actually let our associations freely choose who stands. It is there were I think the problem rises, maybe the associations and divisions should be encouraging/grooming women to stand? But then again should candidates really be chosen for what’s between their legs?
It is obvious to me that there is no shortage of women within the party, there just is no real desire among them to take public office, this has always been a problem, however it is now just being brought thanks to the Sinn Fein production line of candidates. Is it becoming some sort of competition to see which party can get more women elected? Next it’ll be non-whites and then maybe even gingers?!?
I don’t disagree that something needs to be done but I don’t see it as a crisis within the party…
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 10:10 PMBut then again should candidates really be chosen for what’s between their legs?
Why not? It’s not like the UUP men have much to offer there.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 10:40 PM
