Really, the care, honesty, foresight, and camaraderie of the conference organising committee are exemplary. I don't want to embarrass anyone with a screenshot, but this closing WhatsApp message is a perfect example of on-task communication that aims to exemplify values: open about their considerations, limits and values. It's a regent-pure example of what the central party's communications often struggle to achieve.
"Comrades, we have closed the chat groups in this community for further messages. This WhatsApp community was set up to facilitate communication and networking for the conference, and has served that purpose.
We were hoping perhaps the community could continue to provide a networking space, but we have identified a risk of a group set up by the Conference Organising Group/Interim Scottish Executive Committee having an undue influence on the outcome of CEC, SEC, IPDC elections or Holyrood selections.
We also do not have the spare capacity to continuously police these chats for uncomradely behaviour; many of us have 9-5s and even those of us who don't have more important work to focus on to help implement the decisions of conference.
We will not be deleting the groups or removing members, so you will be able to refer back to messages and find people you are keen to continue networking with."
at least eight regions look likely to elect two women. The CEC will probably end up with twenty women and four men. Having women-only seats in such circumstances is anti-male sexism that contravenes the Equality Act.
The reference to the Equality Act is rubbish. The trade union Unison has long had reserved women's places on its national executive and has 75% women's membership. It does not contravene the Equality Act, nor is it 'anti-male sexism'.
Unison also has reserved places for male members to ensure that its national executive broadly reflects its membership. Reserving places for only one sex is illegal 'positive discrimination', and obviously discriminatory when it results in massive under representation of the other sex.
political parties are allowed to use All Women Shortlists until 2030 without specifically justifying that it is a reasonable and proportionate mease to achieve equality - but that is for public office, not for internal positions.
The law is more complex than that and as these things are not specified in statutory codes, the English common law system means courts and tribunals have various interpretations. It's the usual thing that if you ask two barristers, you'll get three opinions. The Labour Party had legal AWSs for decades but abandoned them for Westminster following advice that it MAY be challengeable in court now that the proportion of Labour Women MPs is what it is, BUT that's a court avoidance strategy rather than a definitive acceptance of the evolving state of the law. Similarly union and intra-party elections have taken various different views. To definitively state "women-only seats in such circumstances... contravenes the Equality Act" is rubbish.
it's not 'rubbish', it's a very clear case of discrimination. Even if it was legal - do you think a political party should have an executive that is 20 of one sex and four of the other?
I'm debating the law. Organisations including political parties have had unbalanced gender representation in leadership bodies for decades and centuries - sometimes justified (eg the National Abortion Campaign, a very successful political campaign group in the 1970s had an explicitly 'female-led' organisation structure, so too did the Greenham Common Peace Camp in the 1980s). It's a complex area and saying something is automatically 'illegal' when it isn't is not much use.
I haven't said it 'automatically'. I have read a great deal about the law on the subject, talked to very qualified lawyers about it, and explained my reasoning.
Bob's analysis is the second half of this post: https://open.substack.com/pub/theleftlane2024/p/ten-questions-not-asked-in-your-party?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1h13mz
Some readers have pushed back on today's article. A postscript has been added at https://redmole.substack.com/i/187451658/a-name-removed-a-point-that-stands
Really, the care, honesty, foresight, and camaraderie of the conference organising committee are exemplary. I don't want to embarrass anyone with a screenshot, but this closing WhatsApp message is a perfect example of on-task communication that aims to exemplify values: open about their considerations, limits and values. It's a regent-pure example of what the central party's communications often struggle to achieve.
"Comrades, we have closed the chat groups in this community for further messages. This WhatsApp community was set up to facilitate communication and networking for the conference, and has served that purpose.
We were hoping perhaps the community could continue to provide a networking space, but we have identified a risk of a group set up by the Conference Organising Group/Interim Scottish Executive Committee having an undue influence on the outcome of CEC, SEC, IPDC elections or Holyrood selections.
We also do not have the spare capacity to continuously police these chats for uncomradely behaviour; many of us have 9-5s and even those of us who don't have more important work to focus on to help implement the decisions of conference.
We will not be deleting the groups or removing members, so you will be able to refer back to messages and find people you are keen to continue networking with."
at least eight regions look likely to elect two women. The CEC will probably end up with twenty women and four men. Having women-only seats in such circumstances is anti-male sexism that contravenes the Equality Act.
The reference to the Equality Act is rubbish. The trade union Unison has long had reserved women's places on its national executive and has 75% women's membership. It does not contravene the Equality Act, nor is it 'anti-male sexism'.
Unison also has reserved places for male members to ensure that its national executive broadly reflects its membership. Reserving places for only one sex is illegal 'positive discrimination', and obviously discriminatory when it results in massive under representation of the other sex.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/positive-action-in-the-workplace-guidance-for-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace#:~:text=Section%20158%20does%20not%20apply,comes%20to%20recruitment%20and%20promotion.
political parties are allowed to use All Women Shortlists until 2030 without specifically justifying that it is a reasonable and proportionate mease to achieve equality - but that is for public office, not for internal positions.
The law is more complex than that and as these things are not specified in statutory codes, the English common law system means courts and tribunals have various interpretations. It's the usual thing that if you ask two barristers, you'll get three opinions. The Labour Party had legal AWSs for decades but abandoned them for Westminster following advice that it MAY be challengeable in court now that the proportion of Labour Women MPs is what it is, BUT that's a court avoidance strategy rather than a definitive acceptance of the evolving state of the law. Similarly union and intra-party elections have taken various different views. To definitively state "women-only seats in such circumstances... contravenes the Equality Act" is rubbish.
it's not 'rubbish', it's a very clear case of discrimination. Even if it was legal - do you think a political party should have an executive that is 20 of one sex and four of the other?
I'm debating the law. Organisations including political parties have had unbalanced gender representation in leadership bodies for decades and centuries - sometimes justified (eg the National Abortion Campaign, a very successful political campaign group in the 1970s had an explicitly 'female-led' organisation structure, so too did the Greenham Common Peace Camp in the 1980s). It's a complex area and saying something is automatically 'illegal' when it isn't is not much use.
I haven't said it 'automatically'. I have read a great deal about the law on the subject, talked to very qualified lawyers about it, and explained my reasoning.