Why select someone from ethnic minorities if they are not up to standard? Take a look at my local authority in Hounslow, where the Labour Party has selected a huge number of candidates from the ethnic minorities who became elected. They are all quiet, ineffectual yes men on the surface, and most of them are doing back door favours in return for favours returned by their constituents. A prime example of this is Sidhu Dairies, a Sikh-owned dairy situated in the area that exists in filthy conditions, where unsold and stale milk is thrown back into the system. This dairy has been protected by these corrupt ‘minority’ Labour councils. It’s all business to them.

Other than possibly in terms of language, it’s difficult to see the Irish communities in Britain fulfill the criteria any less than (say) Polish, Portuguese or Greek communities, and have probably suffered at least equal levels of discrimination and disadvantage over the years.

It’s still not so long ago that “No blacks. No Irish” was a sign sometimes seen outside hotels.

This is a tiny group in say Manchester, Liverpool and Kentish Town compared to the whole Irish Diaspora.

There is always the chance as well that Dee would have suffered an immediate backlash if declaring as BME.

In my view it can only be resolved by a question of self definition rather than forcing people into particular boxes – something which created controversy at the last census with a number of groups.

Indeed that loose approach is reflected by both the CRE:

“Someone who is said to belong to an ‘ethnic minority’ is therefore anyone who would tick any box other than ‘White British’ box in response to an ethnicity question on a census form.”

The Courts seem to take a similarly open view

“The House of Lords has provided a definition of ‘ethnic group’ as a group that regards itself, or is regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics that will help to distinguish the group from the surrounding community. Two of these characteristics are essential:
* A long shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it keeps alive; and
* A cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance.”
(as a result of which Jewish people are regarded as an ethnic minority protected by the RRA etc)

I don’t know which boxes the individuals referred to above ticked in their census returns but there is a reasonable case that it would have been open to them to do so. Indeed I might have done so myself as a minor protest against the abscence of categories for Welsh and Scottish ethnic origins on the census form. Under the CRE definition I would be regarded as an ethnic minority – though I’m not attempting to assert that!

Under both those defintions I reckon saying we have no ethnic minority MPs is at least arguably incorrect.

That is though really academic. We are still not a situation that portrays us as a party reflective of the wider UK.

However it is relevant where the issue under discussion is should there be some sort of affirmative action for ethnic minority candidates. In that case it is important that the group be clearly definable.

To put it in practical terms. If we were to “reserve” one of the top four places on the GLA list for an ethnic minority candidate we could have ended up with EXACTLY the same list if (hypothetically) Dee Doocey were to define herself as White Irish which may be the case as suggested above.

Making something that is legally sound, robust and workable is far from easy. If that is to be based on self definition then fine – but beware the law of unintended consequences!

Rabi – stop feeling like you’re the only one who cares. You and EMETF have done good work but you’re not the only ones. Pool ideas, acknowledge the very valid differences. Meral – you have been a shining light for both women and BME councillors/candidates, as well as supportive of diversity matters on the FE. If you’re angry about the way under represented groups have been treated in any way – WLD your budget has been slashed, CGB likewise, DELGA – what grants and what status do you now have?, EMLD – ditto, EMETF – what space have you ever been given or resource from the party to progress your discussions. And LDDA has always been the poor relation with no support whatsoever, struggling to make an impact.

One last serious plea….. Please please get together. Understand that you are the people who understand the issues surrounding your campaigns, and that these capaigns are legitimate and have been quietly undermined for a nuber of years by those purely concerned with swelling their own budgets and power bases. you don’t even have to all have the same approach but just do not accept the funding cuts, nor the patronising attitude that somehow it’s either ‘all your fault’ or that ‘your campaign isn’t a proper campaign’. Your campaigns are all valid – and any Liberal who attempts to deny it is no Liberal. The debate must not be about your validity – each and every one of the under-represented groups – but about the best mechanism to move forward – and this should be free from discussions about funding. If the party prioritises these campaigns as real and relevant then the funding is there.

But please work together.

1) There is no bias in the system. Bias means that some votes are worth more than others. The Labour party has a biased election system for leader and deputy leader (in that MPs votes count for more than those of party members). That is not true in this case: my vote counted just as much when I lived in Shepherd’s Bush as it does now that I live in Surbiton.

2) No-one has mentioned motivating members to campaign in the actual GLA elections. If, as many have plausibly suggested, people vote for their friends in the selection election, presumably they are more likely to work in the actual election if their friends are on the list. As the old saying goes, where we work, we win, and if (rightly or wrongly) the people we like as a party have ended up at the top of the list, then it seems at least plausible that members are more likely to work and win if they know the people at the top. There is a danger that if the voting system is designed so that votes in Shepherds Bush (where we have virtually no members) are given a high weighting, we could end up with people from Shepherds Bush being placed high up on the list, and then failing to get elected because members do not know them, and are not motivated to work for them. We do not have five places on the GLA by right, and we do need people high on the list who have a lot of friends who want to work for them if we are to get lots of people elected. Caroline P’s great result cheers me for that reason – whatever anyone thinks of her, she has shown that she can motivate people to work for her, and I have no doubt that they will work for her in the real election, and by doing so they will get not only her, but others lower down on the list elected.

Plus one MP (Lembit) and some peers as well – Julia Neuberger and Alex Carlile at the very least!

You seem to be equating ethnic minority with non-white which is (a) not correct and (b) becoming less relevant in community cohesion terms.

Am I nitpicking over definitions – possibly. But if the suggestion is that a group is unrepresented and action must be taken to address that then a key early point to address is how that group is defined.

I wonder if any of the BME candidates who did not finish near the top of the list think their own campaigns are to blame? If you do, who do you think has the responsibility for that?

It would be a shame if no-one is making an honest appreciation of the good and bad points of their own campaign in the (perhaps understandable?) apparent rush to blame other people.

We are all liberals. We should have in common a belief that each of us can change the world by taking power into our own hands and acting. Expecting someone from on high to come down and fix all our problems is an attitude more at home with the Labour Party.

Ironically, given the irony you intended Rabi, if fewer BME candidates had put themselves forward, one of them may have done better because those like me who would ilke to have seen a good BME candidate in the top five could have pooled their votes more effectivelty.

Earlier you suggested every underrepresented group getting together. Part of the problem with that is, with a selection like this, a black man pushing out a white woman and throwing gender balance; or a gay woman pushing out an Asian man and ruining ethnic balance. How can you get every underrepresented group represented? The different groups are in competition.

http://www.nasserbutt.com/

Nothing personal Nasser but can I suggest a serious revamp for your website?

Much of what is there does not make sense, reads poorly or has grammatical and typing/spelling mistakes. If that was the basis of my decision you would have done well to have come 12th!

I will say that elsewhere in your site e.g.
http://www.nasserbutt.com/issues/bcdetails.asp?bid=24 I found better evidence of why you might make a better candidate but the front page was terrible

Desperate times call for desperate measures …

Options that come to mind are

*** Persuade potential BME candidates to refrain from putting their names forward
*** Persuade BME members to stay at home and watch televison rather than go out and sell the Party and recruit more members
*** Advice talented / capable EM members to take overtures from other Parties seriously
*** Keep up the fight within the Party until the leadership and the Party at large accept that only positive action will result in the Party getting BME candidates into winnable seats – in local and national elections

>>> There must be other options that the great and good out there can suggest

But someone better come up with a solution that will work and do it quick

Otherwise we are in for some nasty surprises in forthcoming local and national elections as voters ask ” so where are the ethnic minority role models within the Liberal Democrats .. One MEP .. Two Peers … and????????????????

You are so wrong about the Ethnic Minority Election Task Force.

It was EMETF that extracted a public pledge from Ming (and the other leadership contenders)that urgent practical steps would be taken to address the ethnic deficit. Unfortnately the excusion of that pledge has not lived up to the expectation created.

The special diversity fund seems to have been hi-jacked by Steve Hitchins who has decided he has other plans for it

EMETF also solicited support from the PCA to progress the selection of BME PPCs in winnable seats. The results here too have been disappointing

True EMETF did not focus on the GLA elections – partly because we thought our strong active BME councillors were well placed to win through -because they would get the support they deserved

We now know that was misplaced trust

Ah well – we live and learn !!!

On top of this groups like the Ethnic Minority Election Task Force have been more centred around the honours and peerages that individuals have wanted and have done little to change things at a ground level.

It is time that the Party get a grip and empower able and capable individuals to put action plans into effect that help to change a culture of suspicion around Black candidates. That time has come otherwise are we not part of the problem instead of the solution

True enough. I suppose that I’m a mite depressed about the apparent futility of trying to achieve change. However, I would support anyone who has constructive suggestions for improving the way we select candidates.

And it is more than just the Rules, it is the culture within the Party, whereby key proceses are left to well-meaning but under-resourced individuals to deliver. There just aren’t enough hours in the day to do any more than carry out the task in front of us when we should be looking more widely at the impact of the things that follow on behind.

The candidate structure, from asessment to Returning Officers to the English and Regional Candidates Committees, is built on a foundation of goodwill and volunteerism. Whilst the Candidates Office is now, I believe, run very well, the whole system relies far too heavily on a small number of people who spend most of their time being attacked.

This is no defence of the system, but like with so many other things, if you don’t resource a task properly, it won’t be as effective as it might be.

I think that I need more coffee…