Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
One of those rare times when I fully agree with Keith in #9. Positive discrimination is wrong full stop, as is other forms of discrimination.
This is not a party political issue as some seem to suggest. Indeed some foolish individuals suggested this kind of thing for the Conservatives but thankfully got no-where with it.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw;
yOU are incorrect as i have saidmany times before in different threads,
there are a number of issues we would come close to agreeing on.
now back to the topic in hand,
in the next few weeks i will sending a letter to the local and national labour party telling them the results of this disaster of a policy.
whilst fully understanding the need to involve more women because we often find women being put down/excluded just because they are women, but positive discrimination is not the way forward.
I will warning the local party its not in there interest if they wish to regain the MP seat to carry on down this road, and should labour not regain the seat it will go some way to keep ed out of number 10.
Now, there will be tories and closet tories, and pretend tories, and those that say im not a tory that post on here happy to see labour go down this line.
but it's far more important than that for me, i will be giving the national/local party 6 weeks to reconsider, or i will campaign for people to spoil the ballot paper, i do this because it took a long time to get the vote, but i dont want to see any other party in control.
i hear you say, but you will be helping the tories, sadly protests sometimes result in things not being so good, but it's important the labour party at all levels are aware of the discontent out there and there are a number of us ready to start the campaign to spoil ballot papers.
I hope the labour party will reconsider and none of this will be required
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"Utilising the party constitution, Cameron was able to stipulate the role of local parties
regarding candidate selection. He thus launched a two-pronged attack on them: a new priority
list of centrally-designated candidates and changes to local procedures. The former imitated
Andrew Lansley's paper Do the Right Thing (2002). This had recommended an 'A-list' of 100
talented candidates, containing equal numbers of men and women and some ethnic
minorities, from which associations in winnable seats would be encouraged to select.
Cameron though, went further, by stating that they would be expected to select from it,
although exceptionally, local candidates could be considered."
From...
http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2011/1093_585.pdfIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
no different to the labour party then
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I never understood why people would want to make the effort to go to the polling station just to spoil the ballot paper. Staying at home would have the same effect and not add to one's carbon footprint.
I'll mention your possible campaign to some Tories I know, I'm sure they would give you support with printing and distribution.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#22 Keith.. Incorrect for agreeing with you? mmmm interesting statement.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Tom - that is not the same as an all female shortlist or positive discrimination. Candidate selection was up to the local associations from the A list that contained a real cross section to choose from and 'exceptional local candidates' were also allowed.
If Keith cannot tell the difference then there is something very wrong with his understanding of English or he did not bother to read it properly, no surprise there.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
staying home can be construed as cannot be bothered, destroying a ballot paper shows that one feels strongly enough to make a stand.
anyway this discriminatory method of choosing candidates is used by all the main parties, taking it a stage further we have had 5 consecutive female mayors now if we include anne smith.
did the reds say no to this and demand equality for the blokes - answer no.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
While I do fully agree with the argument that 'female only' lists are patronising (but then so too was JHG's comment about not getting the 'quality' of candidate) the cynic in me wonders if Keith would be arguing so hard against were his favoured candidate a woman?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
surely quality of candidate should be the criteria, additionally working or living in the area?
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Well of course Keith had this problem when he was a County Cllr.
First I think Deal was the all female seat, then Eddy & Birkett protested & it became Sansum & Newman, so they campaigned to have it moved.
Ultimately if I remember correctly the problem was transferred to Reg's division[he was ill] & Reg's demise turned out to be Eileen Rowbotham.
So much for loyalty to friends.
I'm sure the protests will now be made about not being true but those in the know will be chuckling.
Watty
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
not true thats correct paulw;
but was one of the many reasons for my leaving the party.
barryw
come on geezer we were in agreement
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
That seems a contradiction.
Never mind.
Watty
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
chris p
sorry mate just seen your post
and no my view would not change even if it was a favoured candidate
i fought the party at national/regional/local level on this issue
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#34 Indeed you did Keith & did for Reg. instead.
Watty
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
i wont continue in this thread as paulw has an interest in the outcome
and of course enjoys moving away from the thread and a little stir.
reg is fully aware of the truth as he worked with me
but anyway thats not for the forum
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Bottom line.
So Keith looks after himself and Reg is shafted.
Watty
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
paulw;
nice try geezer
reg and i the best of friends
anyway best stop this thread as im tempted to highlight all the divisions in the local blue party
so will leave it there
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
there will always be divisions in political parties that each side will try to dampen down and try to highlight the other parties failings.
individual ambition means that this will always happen.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
but howard if you go back to the original thread, it was me that was highlighting my ex party, not another party
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS