I support the aims of Women2Win, but if they think they are going to gain any sympathy through THIS initiative they must be having a laugh. The BBC reports...
They (women) were reluctant to "spend their family's money" on travel, childcare and other costs associated with finding a seat, said spokesman Katie Perrior. Men, on the other hand, were "often the main breadwinners and didn't feel so guilty about spending their money."
So no sexual steroetyping there then.
Mrs Perrior said her organisation wants to set up a bursary to help women with such costs, arguing women tend to be more financially cautious than men. "The money does discourage people, especially women," she told the BBC News website.
As ConservativeHome reported recently, it costs an average £40,000 to stand as a candidate in a marginal seat. Believe me, I know. I was one of them and the experience nearly bankrupted me. Would it have been any cheaper or expensive had I been female? Of course not.
Jonathan Shephard from Tory Radio calls it right when he says: If the party is going to go down the route of bursaries (which I wrote about in January HERE) then why should they be just for women? Surely they should be for those candidates irrespective of what sex they are who may well be precluded from following a career in politics due to financial constraints.
I know now why Tony Blair is growing Man Boobs. Perhaps I should follow suit...
53 comments:
Not a good look Iain.
The issue of the costs to candidates is a serious issues. You have experienced the scarifices that have to be made as have I. To think that support would be available to candidates of a certain sex seems somewhat wrong!
www.toryradio.com
Make it more expensive for women to run and don't give them any help. I don't want any more bossy britches in Parliament or on local councils. Women are interferers, by and large.
Some aren't. Those who have something to offer that people actually want - ie, not new sets of rules and bossiness - will plough on regardless, and will win regardless. Cream rises to the top. Why subsidise milk?
Curses ! You beat me [all of us?] to the comment about Tony Blair. Foiled again !
ps. thanks verity for that eutruth thingy -very interesting !!
I can call you Emma from now on!
There's equality, then there's equality. And it depends upon which equality you want. Equality at a price, like this lot are calling for, is not the way to achieve it.
Does it cost Labour candidates 40k to fight a marginal ?
No subsidies for helping the weak into Parliament! We want strength and fighting ability.
I am all for level playing fields but if there are to be bursaries they should be fair. Running a campaign is a huge commitment - not just a financial commitment. A good candidate needs to be good at fund-raising as well as good at spending the money!
I stood for Labour at the last general election while working in a call centre so I can safely say that it didn't cost me £40,000.
Tony does not need any help as he has done his job. Over and out.
Those of us outside the Westminster village are getting sick and tired of the bleating/special pleading from MPs and those who wish to represent us. In any other enterprise in life, you have to put your money where your mouth is. Why shouldn't this simple principle apply to these who simply want to mouth?
Only a few weeks ago a group on behalf of our elected so called representatives wanted a pay rise of all things. What planet are these people on? Do they not know the widespread contempt we feel for them? Instead of a pay rise they should get a pay cut given their a)impotence b) incompetence. We no longer simply despise New Labour, we now realise the disease has spread into the whole body politic.
As you have mentioned to me previously, just the mention of opposition to AWS can open you up to torrents of abuse.
As I found out yet again this week.
http://kerroncross.blogspot.com/2007/01/all-women-shortlists-revisited.html
Interestingly, my piece wasn't even really about the merits of AWS!
Anyone who has been an officer or a coach in a sports club, a church, an association such as a residents' association or a charity will have found themselves volunteering many hours of their time, being expected to put their hands in their pockets at social events, diverting effort from work and hence missing income and promotion opportunities. For these people there is no prize at the end of the process except perhaps the satisfaction of furthering the objectives of your voluntary body and your name on a brass plaque.
At least a parliamentary candidate can look forward to the chance of a new and exciting career, a large salary with further chances of promotion, a long working life (my local MP is 72!) and a massive inflation linked pension.
Tories often talk about volunteering. This whinge from the ladies, and previously from the rest too, maybe shows a lack of understanding of what that means.
I always tell potential candidates for captain at my rowing club that they should do the job because they enjoy it not because they feel obliged as it will take up the equivalent of 3 working days a week, ie pretty much all your free time all year round, plus inroads into your work time.
There may be a case for some kind of hardship fund for candidates but if you cannot think of some way of raising extra cash and if you cannot fight your own corner you will never be much of an MP I suspect.
Boo, hoo, hoo.
Boobs don't suit Tony Blair and they would not suit you.
Although I instinctively feel that we all need a defining part of our bodies.
Yours is your massive forehead - similar to Jeff Morrow's in "This Island Earth".
Queen Anne - nice legs.
You will, puddin', you will. Just give it time.
Does it cost 40k for all prospective MPs to stand as candidates? If it does that would explain why so many MPs are fiddling their expenses, have numerous outside interests, and are still being paid to ask questions in Parliament. Cash-for-questions never really went away. The practice has been warmly embraced by Labour and the Lib Dems. Only they're craftier these days.
I think we need to distinguish between actual and opportunity costs. If I were a management consultant charging (when in commission) £800 a day I could easily claim the cost of an election campaign to be £40k of foregone earnings. However, this is a very different figure to the actual costs incurred (and allowed to be incurred)under the 1973 Representation of the People Act as amended by the 2000 PPERA.
Election to Parliament shouldn't be a 'career move' or a calculated step on the road to greater riches. The current arrangements at least require candidates to make a serious personal commitment. I want an MP who will put my interests and constituency interests above his or her own interests of those of their party. Some indication of selflessness is therefore predicated.
And don't forget that the loathsome BNP could also take advantage of any 'subsidy' targetted at wimmin; and perhaps even charismatic dancers with the National Ballet as well as the usual thuggish bus drivers would feel financially comfortable enough to stand.
I don't believe it should cost £40,000 to stand in a marginal - that shows profligacy, poor team-working and lack of imagination.
Some central support would be handy, but this should be done on a case-by-case basis and impact on local associations as well as CCHQ. All candidates should state their bursary expectation as part of each selection process.
That it costs, on average, £40K to stand for parliament, Iain, merely confirms the widely held view of the electorate out here; that there's something rotten in the state of politics.
It cost a group of seven, totally inexperienced, greenspace campaigning, Independents I belong to less than £1300 to stand for our local council against the big three parties. That sum excludes our election fees which we respectively covered ourselves.
The c £1300 includes the cost of two leaflets which we delivered by hand to around 13000 people.
To the great shock of an electorate who haven't seen a politician on their doorsteps for many years, we canvassed votes door to door.
Our politically inexperienced group increased overall turnout by 20% and polled over 20% of the vote.
With just two weeks holiday from work plus evenings and weekends to canvas - against the, well resourced campaign of the big three, which included personally addressed letters posted to all of the electorate from Michael Howard, plus a discreditable dirty tricks campaign by one of the main parties - our group polled over 20% of the vote. I came second in my ward, polling over 26% of the vote, knocking Labour and Lib Dems into 2nd and 3rd place and reducing the Conservative winning margin by over 20%.
So, in the case of an average marginal: how can average costs of £40,000, 2976% more than the c £1300 we spent, for a constituency just 80% larger, possibly be justified?
The whole issue of the spin doctored big party machines and big money campaigns of the three parties - aimed at effectively buying votes and the privileges of power for an elitist few - leaves such a rancid smell in the nostrils of the electorate. Little wonder so many are alienated from politics and politicians and turnout has fallen so abysmally low. Little wonder that Blair and nulab were able to use the apathy they've been instrumental in generating, to erode our Parliamentary and Cabinet checks on their abuse of power.
This is not democracy.
Iain, isn't it time politicians got off their butts, stopped effectively buying votes and got out onto our doorsteps and into the hustings again in order to resurrect UK's democracy before we lose it?
If I were a Conservative - which for me is rather like saying 'If I were a kangaroo' or 'If I were Geoff Hurst', but bear with me - and supported yer man Cameron's modernising aims I would give serious consideration to providing burseries, though not, as Mr Sheppard says, only for female candidates. The notion is not inconsistent with the principles of the 'A' list (as F. Maude would remind me it isn't called) and burseries might well help to encourage a broader range of Tory candidate - not only more women and persons from ethnic minorites but also bright white blokes who don't have a spare forty grand lying around.
Incidentally, Iain, I wonder if you're being a bit unfair suggesting that the W2W spokes, er, 'man' is guilty of sex stereotyping. To me it seems quite possible that she is simply identifying a social reality, given that women in general tend to a) have less money to call their own than do men and that b) women in general tend to be more mindful of domestic and family economics than do men.
If the effect of these realities is to hold back women who might otherwise be top rate Tory candidates whose presence helps the Conservative cause, then it may be time for those Tory menfolk who generate most or all of their household's income to start remembering that it would be harder for them to do so if they didn't have wives or partners taking care of business on the home front. If they did that they might be more willing to see some of that income devoted to supporting those of their wives or partners who fancy a career in politics and would thereby reduce the need for burseries. Or would such a leap in gender consciousness be too 'politically correct' for the party of family values?
Just trying to helpful!
It's funny how people rationalise things away.
I mean men live 3-5 years less than women so that means men should get higher priority in all health care until mens health improves and womens health falls to equal levels - it's ONLY FAIR.
Take a tip from me, Iain - growing man boobs would be much easier if you weren't teetotal.
I agree with Phil Taylor.
I have spent years working for a learned society for no reward. I don't expect one. Lord knows what it has cost me financially. But that is not the point. Its called putting something back.
And Raedwald you are right. Parliament is not a career. Its serving your country. This whinge is hardening my view that conservativehome is the home of hacks and careerists.
Personally I find 40k an inflated figure. What on earth is the money spent on? Dream turnips for all in Dunny-on-the-Wold?
Sexism is sexism no matter which way it goes...wonder when the Tories are going to realise that.
Verity said - "We want strength and fighting ability"
'We'??
You live in America don't you Verity? We don't give a shit what you want.
It really is irritating, at the very least, when a self-interested group start claiming special treatment for themselves. What next? Women's Police Monitoring Group? Women's Legal Advice? Women's TV? Women's Christian Movement?
Seems as if the defining characteristic of politicans, both actual and putative, is that of getting someone else to foot the bill. Pay, pensions, expenses and now election costs.
No doubt the next development will be to fund these bursaries from the barrow-loads of cash the parties intend to extract from our wallets in the state funding rip-off.
And they wonder why we despise them.
Can't remember the last time a political retiree ended their career less well-off than when they started. So the front-end expenses should be considered as an investment for all the future goodies - or an entry fee, the wherewithal to allow entry into that exclusive club of trough snufflers and freeloaders.
It's about time the implied contract between the electors and the elected was reviewed and payment made solely on results.
No, cowardly Anonymous 12:17. I don't live in the US.
But I escaped Tony Blair's foetid, noxious administration and don't live in Britain, either, but guess what! - I DO have a vote! So what I want is every bit as important as what you want.
You seem to be rather ill-informed about the voting system.
A lot of people who don't know s..t from shinola are talking a lot of crap here.
The reason why it is so expensive to be a Parliamentary candidate is because it is the candidate is EXPECTED to buy or rent a house in the constituency and work as a quasi MP (actually doing casework) in the constituency for up to two years before an election. Otherwise you are considered a shirker. How are you supposed to do this, which would mean taking a leave from your own job unless you are wealthy? Either our expectations for our candidates must change or some kind of bursary which should be available on a means tested basis must exist. And not just for women. It looks like Wimmen 2 Win has just alienated a whole bunch of people.
If some kind of bursary system does not exist then only the wealthy can be in Parliament and you will all be bleating about how it is only a rich man's game. So make up your mind, what is it to be?
What I agree we do need, is a standardised system for the paying of MPs and their staff. Too many MPs still employ family members for salaries way over the market price. And too many others do not pass along the cost of living increases that they receive every year to their staff. This is inexplicable as they can't pocket this so the only reason I can think is that this is to prove to their constituents and the media about how 'frugal' they are. Meanwhile, the staff are constantly short changed. I have heard MPs brag about how they pay their staff the absolute minimum. There should also be transparency so that we know how much each staff member is paid, therefore ending the gravy train for relatives.
Nobody working in Parliament whether as an MP or staff does so to become rich - however they are entitled to a living wage. If something doesn't change soon we are going to be in a situation where we have only seriously wealthy MPs with staff who are subsidised by Daddy or spouses. And that is NOT the way it should be.
Lady Finchley, you argue your case well, but I still disagree violently with you.
You close by saying: "If something doesn't change soon we are going to be in a situation where we have only seriously wealthy MPs with staff who are subsidised by Daddy or spouses. And that is NOT the way it should be."
Well, just maybe it is the way it should be if that is the logical way.
We must have absolutely no more calls on the public purse. None. We have to begin laying about us with a machete, lopping people and causes off the public teat, not loading more people on. No bursaries to help heave people up onto the gravy train.
If only the rich can afford to become MPs, OK; that is how life is. I think a poor person or a person of modest means who is obviously of great value will find private funding.
No bursaries. And no special treatment of any kind for women. It is not as though women politicians are of such great value their talents are not to be found amongst the male population.
Under the current system, I think money should be given to candidates who need it the most in terms of being able to win that seat and not on the basis of gender. Saying women need extra help as they are not used to spending money is ridiculous and surely stereotyping and sexist in itself.
The problem with financing political campaigns is the amount of the cost and the democractic deficit. Political parties whinge about how much money it takes to finance a campaign but they are happy to take cash from trade unions and companies and not put more reasonable legal limits on how much needs to be spent in elections. Surely we don't want to go down the US route where only the rich can run?
Also with the democratic deficit - it means money will mainly go to finance campaigns in swing seats which meaning our votes do not count the same. So if you live in a safe seat which is not held by your party (or if indeed you are an independent) and don't have the money to run a campaign - then why bother? Political party 1: British electorate 0
A cosy situation which the Tories and Labour seem to think is perfectly reasonable and democratic.
Lady Finchley said:
The reason why it is so expensive to be a Parliamentary candidate is because it is the candidate is EXPECTED to buy or rent a house in the constituency and work as a quasi MP ...
With respect, you're making the assumption that all parliamentary candidates are blow-ins with no real link to the constituency. This is exactly what so many of us are sick of; party apparatchiks parachuted in as obedient party servants with no more idea of the soul of their constituency than if they were representing Kurghistan.
These set-up costs don't apply to those who have lived, worked, raised families and maybe worked as a party volunteer in their areas.
Politics is NOT a dream career for any numpty with a 2:1 in PPE and an absence of convictions to follow. The sooner the grip of the central parties on local candidates is severed, the sooner real local engagement will return to politics, party memberships will grow, and the number of door knockers and envelope stuffers will reach their former levels.
Raedwald - Well said!
Gaffauk - "Surely we don't want to go down the US route where only the rich can run?"
If that's how it pans out, that's how it pans out. If you want the government to come in and solve it, you're part of the problem and should join the Labour Party.
Competent, charismatic people with convictions will find sponsorship from local wealthy people.
Governments must never, never become involved in funding parties or PPCs. We are trying to get the Gorgon of government out of all our lives. It's not a smorgasboard. You can't pick and choose. You're either for government involvement in every aspect of life where there is a problem, in which case you're a socialist, or you're for private initiative and private solutions of problems, in which case you're a Tory. You can't make exceptions just because they suit you.
Well, Verity hopefully you have a private income but a lot of us don't. Why should politics be just a rich man's game? And how can anybody condone that? So should the rest of us poor slobs forget about a career in politics because we don't have rich daddies or rich husbands or City jobs? Sorry, but that is elitism of the worst kind.
And Raedwald, what you say is not strictly true. I know a fantastic A-lister, very involved in local issues who was not chosen for her local constituency and will now have to travel further afield if she wants a seat. That is hardly being parachuted in. What if there is no suitable local candidate?
I have a feeling that a good many of you who are spouting off know very little about how it really works. Raedwald, until you have a fought a seat yourself you will have no idea of how most candidates (with the excpetion of the candidate for Finchley who was dire)put their heart and soul into it, become totally immeresed in local issues and really love the constituency. Don't assume that all 'outsiders' are parachuted in. Also, some of the local party workers I have met are the most mean spirited, nasty people I have ever come across so please let's not paint them all as local heroes.
And for the record, I think the Parties should fund the candidates, not the Government.
Lady Finchley said:
The reason why it is so expensive to be a Parliamentary candidate is because it is the candidate is EXPECTED to buy or rent a house in the constituency and work as a quasi MP (actually doing casework) in the constituency for up to two years before an election. Otherwise you are considered a shirker. How are you supposed to do this, which would mean taking a leave from your own job unless you are wealthy?
Appoint local candidates, Lady F, then the housing problem is solved. The electorate would actually prefer it. This business of shipping into a constituency, under whatever pretext, some carpet bagging crony who then buys a house there - often a second home - in order to pretend to be a local, it stinks. And the electorate aren't fooled by it.
As for the expected casework, anyone who wants to become a constituency's parliamentary candidate should have an established track record of time and commitment given to that community. That's another reason for appointing local candidates - and there is an ample supply of such people.
I don't accept that it is either necessary or desirable for candidates to give up their jobs. Local candidates who have always been involved with their community without reward and who have always written to the local press - in their spare time - merely need to continue with this.
As for bursaries, the electorate are already sick of paying through the nose for our politicians and their party machines. There will be huge opposition to doling out any more of our, already depleted, public funds.
Let politicians live according to their means for a change - and let those means be frugal - it will be good practice for running a sound economy. God knows they need that practice.
Gaffauk said: "Under the current system, I think money should be given to candidates who need it the most in terms of being able to win that seat and not on the basis of gender. Saying women need extra help as they are not used to spending money is ridiculous and surely stereotyping and sexist in itself."
Point. Missed. And diminished.
This isn't about gender. It is about the free citizenry and the government. And the answer is "no". No money from "the government". Are you people so blind that you cannot foresee the creep?
Lady Finchley - I'm sorry, but if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. That is life.
The state is not a benevolent daddy who will sort out injustices for you. Find another way of getting your financing.
The state must not finance political parties and it must never, never, never finance candidates through the pretty word "bursaries". It honestly distresses me to see Conservatives presenting the state as a solution to any problem, never mind their own.
Anonymous 12:19 has it right, in my opinion.
Either fight the good fight, and most welcome you will be in the fray, but don't go running to Daddy Government for extra pocket money. This would be the thin edge of the wedge for governments to control candidates, electorates and results. No. No. No. And hell no! Do not invite the government in! They will do parlous damage to the fabric of our democracy, as blair has already done, and you will never get them out of the process once they have woven themselves into the warp and the weft.
If you are driven to serve, find a way to get your financing. If you are clever and driven, you will.
Lady Finchley -
You're doing a very good job of making all my points for me - keep going!
re. the 'A lister' who 'now has to travel further afield if she wants a seat' I really must remind you that our system of representative democracy is actually supposed to be for the benefit of communities of British subjects and not for the benefit of candidates seeking a job. If she was not selected for her own constituency - tough. I would have rather more time for her if she stayed and used her supposed 'A list' abilities in support of the chosen candidate, resigned herself to having missed the boat herself but with the satisfaction that she'd be helping the better qualified person win the seat for her home area.
And as for the 'mean spirited, nasty' local party workers, can you really blame them for resenting the sort of patronising condescension it sounds as though they have been treated to?
If anybody has any doubts over whether Cameron is a really a Conservative, this should lay them to rest.
Conservatives believe in equality: that is why, for example, we introduced the universal franchise or the sale of council houses. Equality, however, is not the same as equality of outcome. In fact, logically, it is inconsistent with it as we will all make different choices, both individually and in groups and therefore equality of opportunity implies inequality of outcome. Freedom implies inequality of outcome.
Cameron does not share these basic values. This is proved by his target of 50% for women candidates and introducing inequality to achieve which apes the worst tendencies of the loony left.
By all means, make politics more attractive to a more representative group of people than the current lot. But setting a target of 50% for a particular group goes against justice and conservative principles.
Verity - I certainly don't believe taxpayers/the government should give any money towards political - certainly not above or beyond what they may get now. And if you reread what I put I didn't say money from the Government did I? I was referring that under the current system; political parties should give more money to their own candidates, which have the most chance of winning or where it is a marginal.
"If that's how it pans out, that's how it pans out."
This absurd. The government sets the rules and we do not have accept how things 'pan out'. If you believe in things running there natural course then why have any laws? For instance, with business, we have minimum wage, health and safety laws and laws to prevent cartels and insider trading.
"Competent, charismatic people with convictions will find sponsorship from local wealthy people."
Great - so the wealthy people get to pick which candidates best suit their views?!! If we don't have a limit of how parties can spend (which we currently have) - then it inevitably becomes more about who can raise the most money from the wealthy by reflecting their views than picking the candidate who is more popular within the community as a whole - rich or poor. Look at the corruption we have in the Lords because the wealthy give donations and loans because they want extra privilege and status in our political system.
"If you want the government to come in and solve it, you're part of the problem and should join the Labour Party."
All I wish is that there are sensible limits as to what political parties can spend at national and local levels within elections. I have no wish to join the Labour Party. The Tory party have over the years they have been in power - have put in many laws themselves, which regulate our lives. In fact - wasn't it the Tories who joined the EEC, signed the European Single Act and the Maastricht Treaty without asking the British people? Now if you to talk about interference from the EU then you certainly got the Tories to blame there.
"You're either for government involvement in every aspect of life where there is a problem, in which case you're a socialist, or you're for private initiative and private solutions of problems, in which case you're a Tory. You can't make exceptions just because they suit you."
Yep that sums up your simplistic black and white view of politics. You are either a totally free market Tory (which has never existed as a government) or a communist Labourite (again which has never existed as a government). Politics is inevitably about balance. It's about where you draw the line as opposed to whether should be a line or not. There is no such thing as a truly free market where individuals and companies can do what they like. And because someone like myself wants the Government to regulate - that does not mean I wish to have interference from Government in all aspects of our lives.
In fact I seem to remember it has been the Tories who have lectured us over so many supposedly 'moral' things - like single mothers, gay partnerships etc that has been totally unnecessary and interfering. Fortunately the Tories now have someone from the left of their party who is going against the grain about free unrestrained capitalism and greed. Must be a real anathema to you?;)
If you want the Law of the Jungle then maybe you should move to Borneo?
Raedwald you really are rather naive and have no political nous at all. This A Lister, which I am sure gets up your nose in the first place, is the mother of a child with special needs and even before her candidacy, was very vocal in the media, criticising this Government's disgraceful policy on SENS. This Party NEEDS somebody like this woman, who can actually do some good. So she should just make way for some local yokel? I have no objection to local candidates if they are good - Finchley now has the excellent Mike Freer - but to go all sentimental and gooey eyed over local activists, many of whom are nasty, mean spirited, cliquey and naive - you obviously must be one.
As for obtaining financial backing, Verity, yes that is a solution but then you are in the position of having to pay the piper. This is why the Parties should do the funding though of course it should not come from the Government. I would gladly pay a little extra for my membership if I knew that was where it was going.
Lady Finchley made some good points. Verity - you're a belligerent idiot. Wherever you are, may you stay there.
Raedwald - Well said again!!
Scary Biscuits - Agreed!!
Gaffauk - Actually, at one time I did consider moving to Borneo, which everyone loves. I was going to move to the capital of Sarawak, Kuching - which means 'cat' in Malay. They have a wonderful orang utan rescue centre in Sarawak and Kuching is a superneat big, bustling city with great restaurants.
Perhaps you should be a little more informed before you make your insular jibes, to save yourself embarrassment?
You cite "minimum wage" laws as a good thing which tells me there is no point in trying to answer your points. I do not believe governments should be involved in the democratic process. Once they are entangled in it with disbursing money, they will take control by stealth.
I think the parties themselves should find a way of at least contributing to the campaign of a very viable candidate, but they shouldn't finance them entirely. Do you really want to finance someone else's career for them? I don't!
The 'A' list concept is the thin end of the wedge and is a vivid illustration of how politicians want to control every aspect of democracy. You have to watch them like a hawk.
Lady Finchley, I find your arrogance rather distasteful. Someone indigenous to the community, who knows its needs and concerns intimately and has put loyal yeoman's work into the party is a "local yokel"?
And, hard as it may sound, the woman with a kid with "special needs" should be at home looking after it, not in Parliament spending her time pleading for a special case rather than running the country. Or thinking she is contributing to running the country because she has "special insights". And don't you know she would start every contribution to a debate with, "As the mother of a special needs child ...". Dear God, we've already got Gordon Brown with his defective kid, and David Cameron with his defective kid. I think we need Parliament to be a little more robust than this!
Verity,
Speaking of distasteful - you do take the cake! You really don't like women much do you? And to call the children of Gordon Brown and David Cameron defective! How cruel can you be?
If you had a clue about special needs you would know that successive Governments have failed special needs children who become special needs adults - as a caseworker I saw the painful results - for the child, the parent and for society. We need people like her and David Cameron to call attention to this disgraceful situation and to remedy it once and for all.
And many of local yokels have similar opinions to yours - that she should hide her 'monstrous' child away, look after him and shut up. Which is why I am doing everything I can to promote and support her.
It is very easy when you are smug and secure to look your nose down on those whom life has dealt a cruel blow - it would seem that in your opinion poverty or disability is a result of a character flaw or fecklessness. All I can say, Verity, is I hope misfortune never befalls you.
Verity - you say they are insular jibes but you fail to address the reasonable points I raise.
How can Government NOT be involved with the democratic process? A government is a central part of the democratic process.
I'm sure you and I can agree to disagree on the minimum wage. Personally I would rather a company paid an employee who cleans toilets a basic wage of £5.35 than have them take unemployment benefit or have a sweat-shop mentality. Of course the Tories were against the idea and the CBI claimed inflation and unemployment would go through the roof. Unfortunately Thatcher, Major and Blair have done little to get the long-term unemployed or those dumped onto sickness benefit back to work.
So once again:
1) Do you believe government should set laws?
2) If so - isn't that interference?
And I will say again - I do NOT believe taxpayers should pay a penny more toward political parties. In fact I believe Trade Union and Companies should also be prevented from giving money to political parties.
Lady Finchley -
You seem to utterly and totally miss the point that MPs are returned to Parliament to represent their constituents, not the interests of their own disabled children. What on earth do you imagine Parliament is actually for?
.....
Or, erm, alternatively praps we could find the 'top' 635 diseases and MPs could have a ballot for them?
"Oh Bugger! Bob Marshall-Andrews has got Cystic Fibrosis! I wanted that! D'you reckon he'd do swapsies for Prostate Cancer?"
Crikey Raewald, maybe I should explain myself in words of one sylable. Okay, let's try this. MP with special needs child. Knows the score. Thousands of special needs children and adults throughout the country and no doubt some in her constituency. MP brings attention to the situation, gets something done, perhaps a change in policy. A win-win situation. Most MPs have a 'specialist' subject which doesn't mean they aren't knowledgable about anything else.
If you spent any time doing constituency casework as I have then you would know that most cases are about 1)benefits, 2)education, 3)tax credits, 4)Child Support agency, 5)immigration problems 6) housing. These are all universal problems and no special local knowledge required. Of course there are local issues but it doesn't take a genius to figure them out.
You obviously have a bone to pick - perhaps you were passed over as a candidate and with your attitude I can understand why.
By the way, I am sure that you have a great deal less Parliamentary experience than I do as evidenced by your ill-conceived remarks.
Also, your remarks about people's disabilities are rather distasteful.
"Dear God, we've already got Gordon Brown with his defective kid, and David Cameron with his defective kid. I think we need Parliament to be a little more robust than this!"
"Or, erm, alternatively praps we could find the 'top' 635 diseases and MPs could have a ballot for them?"
Scratch the surface and you'll still see the Nasty Party is still alive and kicking. Looks like Dave has he work cut out trying to con the electorate the Tory Party has changed it's spots.
Gaffauk,
Well said. Their attitude makes me feel ashamed to be Conservative. I thought the 80's and the 'I'm Alright Jack (So Who Gives A Damn About You) era was over. Hopefully they are just throwbacks.
Gaffauk - Perhaps we were misunderstanding one another. I agree with you that trades unions should not be allowed to contribute to political parties, and I believe neither should governments. If you were saying that political parties ought to partially fund their own candidates who need financial help, I would agree with you.
Lady Finchley, I don't mind debating you rationally, but you must not detect in me trite personal tastes that I do not have. You say I don't like women. I don't know what you base this leap of imagination on, but as a woman myself and with most of my closest friends being women, I am not going to defend myself from this foolish charge.
Also, if you want a rational, courteous response, you must not put words in my mouth. You ascribe to me the opinion that the mother of the "special needs" child "should hide her 'monstrous' child away, look after him and shut up." Reread my posts on this subject above, discover that I neither wrote nor implied any such thing, and I will accept an apology from you.
Both Brown's child and Cameron's child were born with a defective gene. Otherwise they would be normal. This is indisputable.
I am opposed to organising society around the weakest. This makes for a weak, unstable society divorced from normality - viz, calling cripples, blind people, children with defective genes "differently abled". This is a society in denial and it is not good.
Society should be strong and solid as a rock and, of course, the strong should help the weak, as we have done in our island society for hundreds of years. But the weak are not the norm and must not be presented as being the norm. The Victorians, a very strong, able society, took care of the weaker members not through government diktat, but through the kindness of charitable societies contributed to by the able middle classes and the very rich.
The notion that someone should be given special help to get work as an MP (here we are, accepting weakness as the norm) because she has a "special needs" child is beyond absurd. As Raenwald correctly pointed out, MPs are there to serve their thousands of constituents, not act as lobbyists for their own children. That this lady has a disabled child is not a qualification for being in government.
You say, referring to me, "If you had a clue about special needs you would know that successive Governments have failed special needs children who become special needs adults." Let their families lobby their MPs for help. The role of the MP is to contribute to the governance of the country and to serve ALL constituents. I also do not like the emotion surrounding this discussion, with you tarring me because I think we only need strong people in Parliament.
I'm sorry, she will be consumed with her situation and that weakens her; and she will not be able to spend the amount of time attending debates, studying legislation, attending late night sittings, voting and doing her constituency work that she would be being paid to do by the taxpayer.
You say: "It is very easy when you are smug and secure to look your nose down on those whom life has dealt a cruel blow." Actually, I don't look down my nose at anyone and it is arrogant and bossy of you to claim that I do.
You say Raedwald is "naive and has no political nous at all". And his opinions opposing your own are ascribed to "perhaps you were passed over as a candidate and with your attitude I can understand why." In other words, Raedwald cannot be opposing you with rational arguments. His reasons for opposing you must be a snit that he was "passed over" for a seat.
Tell me, Lady Finchley, do you approve of anyone?
BTW, if you are going to explain yourself to Raedwald "in words of one sylable", I suggest you spell 'syllable' correctly. As a courtesy. To Raedwald. Who has done you no harm except to have the temerity to entertain an opposing opinion.
Verity,
You cannot rationalise yourself out of this one - you have made some extremely distasteful remarks and you are intelligent enough to know that calling Cameron and Brown's children 'defective' is abhorrent. And, if you read the rest of my posting you will have had your answers to the rest of your posting.
You are always making disparaging remarks about women, especially those in politics. 'Women are inteferers, by and large'. Good, we need some intefering women in Parliament.
You are so lacking in compassion but unfortunately it often takes misfortune to have it. You might think you have a nice little life from which you can look down on the less fortunate but you can never know what life throws at you. This sort of smug lack of compassion and hard heartedness is why people hate the Tories.
God forbid that you ever have a relation that is 'defective' and you might be singing a different tune.
Verity, I am really disappointed in you.
Verity, I am really disappointed in you.
Hectoring, bossy, preachy,schoolma'army Lady Finchley, you provide a vivid illustration of what has given women in politics a toxic reputation.
If you would answer my arguments, I would defend every word I wrote, but you don't. If you would present some opposing arguments, I would try to answer them courteously, but you don't. You hector and accuse and whine.
This is my last post on this thread, but you have illustrated vividly why (most) women in Parliament are counter-productive. They are driven by emotion rather than thought. There are mavericks, of course, and they are much admired. Margaret Thatcher is the obvious heroine, but, whether one liked her or not, Edwina Currie fought the fight with wit, objectivity and intelligence. Anne Widdecombe doesn't turn into an emotional basket case during debates, and she doesn't think she absolutely knows what is best for absolutely everyone. She is reasoned and rational.
Adults, aka "voters", don't want mumsy women trying to run their lives for them. And most of us find political correctness, aka "thought fascism" noxious. I will use words of my own choosing and your opinion of my choices is of no consequence.
Verity,
As for Ann Widdecombe - we are talking about the same one aren't we? She is the perfect example of someone who points her finger in your face and thinks that she is right in everything. Now, you are sure your aren't her long lost sister?
And Edwina Currie - mmm, yes another woman with a huge case of penis envy who hates other women and has crappy taste in men. Such excellent role models, I'm sure.
Xphjklyfg - can you give us a specific example of a woman in the UK who is doing the same identical job as a man and has the same experience and is paid less purely because she is a woman?
Post a Comment