I’m generally supportive of the diversity motion introducing all women shortlists (AWS) at the next federal conference in York, (this argument is particularly persuasive), but will AWS permanently solve the problem of our party being too male and pale? If the proposals are passed and are successful, we might look in the Westminster bubble like we have addressed the gender disparity, however, as a party that relies on its local activists and councillors we ought to embed this cultural change more broadly. As Mark Pack has pointed out, we don’t have enough women councillors, council candidates and local party officers (all about a third of total). And, as noted in one of the reports to conference, the percentage of female approved candidates is 27%.
The motion doesn’t address this except to say-
Conference acknowledges that:
d) Proposals will be coming forward on wider party diversity, including in party structures and local government, as part of the Federal Executive-led Governance Review to the Autumn Federal Conference
So how might we go about this? Wouldn’t it be more in keeping with our values for change to be encouraged with more carrot than forced upon us with bureaucratic stick? There are plans being developed in the English party relating to a small extra line of expenditure in the 2016 budget called ‘Access to Activism’ that aims at “addressing concerns about the increasing barriers facing new and potential activists in terms of both diversity and financial resources”. For me it would make sense to disburse these funds in much the same way as the G8 small grants have been handled by ALDC. A small cash boost to campaigning funds in target wards with female/BME candidates could do a lot in encouraging local parties to address diversity. Why not use systems already in place? This approach could be used to engage other under-represented groups that can’t be exclusively shortlisted like with AWS due to legislation, and wouldn’t necessarily exclude white men as many wards elect two or more councillors. And raising awareness of ALDC amongst new activists is also no bad thing.
We could be more radical and use another extant incentive scheme to encourage local parties. The increased membership rebates to growing local parties has been incredibly successful and it should be possible to give a local party a greater percentage of membership fees if, for example, 50% of their exec is female or BME, or if 50% of their local council candidates are female or BME. My experience of local parties is that they’re perfectly happy to have greater diversity, but spend much more time talking about campaigning (or the latest political gossip), and things, more or less, remain the same. We need to encourage local parties to look beyond the usual suspects for candidates and exec members, and a small financial incentive may bring about a significant increase in action.
I appreciate party finances are under pressure, but if we think this issue is important enough to introduce all women shortlists then surely it is important enough to move some funds around. Time to put our money where our mouth is?
* Tad Jones is a Liberal Democrat member in Nottingham and a member of ALDES. He writes in a personal capacity.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers Diary: The only estate in England with a breeding population of corkindrills
Renters Rights Bill long overdue
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
John Grout
Cassie
Peter Hirst
Joe Bourke
83 Comments
Hi Tad, how funny, my post a short while is along a similar thread of thought! Please do have a look: http://ldv.org.uk/49626 I am trying to set up a pastoral care team in the west mids region, which I hope will be part of a systemic change at grassroots level that makes it easier for under-represented groups to feel comfortable with joining in with the party in the first place. They will then be supported if they run into difficulties along the way. So many small things where activists don’t feel supported can put people off, and quite often, meeting culture itself is only appealing to a small number of people, who very often occupy the same demographics. Really glad to see more posts where people are thinking outside of the box to solve this problem!
Interesting suggestion. Almost anything is better than the grossly illiberal proposal to impose AWS, which will almost certainly decrease economic diversity by favoring posh girls with good social networks over men with lower social standing.
However be careful how much administration you impose. Payment by results from the central party for increasing e.g. BAME membership will need a lot of admin.
I agree that the tabled proposal regarding AWS is one that we should oppose; if such an illiberal measure is carried I would seriously consider my future within this party.
At what point did gender become such a predominant characteristic that we would consider appointing a woman (who for all the proposed rule change cares, might be a white middle-class Oxbridge educated woman with rich parents whose work/life experience consists of being employed as a SPAD by some recently defeated LibDem MP) in preference to a man who is otherwise more popular with party members in his constituency (and who might, ditto, be disabled and/or BME and/or from a working-class or disadvantaged background and/or might have some valuable real-life work experience to offer)?
p.s. to which one obvious retort is “at the point when we had no female MPs”. Which I agree was disappointing and regrettable. But:
a) we did put forward a range of excellent female candidates, including re-standing MPs, in seats which were not necessarily unwinnable, and
b) our sadly diminished parliamentary group is not really diverse in many more ways than their gender
Arguing for more carrot is good, but more stick is coming our way if the national conference approves a motion similar to the Scottish party one.
Ian says some things I agree with. The number one reason why I didn’t want Labour to win the last general election was because of the idea that we can chuck all disadvantaged men into the privileged box and discriminate against them. People talk about “intersectionality”, but it seems to only apply to women.
Oh for goodness sake. I will be very disappointed if the diversity motion isn’t passed. As a party member for 51 years I will not be leaving whatever the result. Will people please accept democracy with a good grace, even when they don’t get what they want
Mick, I’ll still vote for the party if it is passed too, but if we are going to get bashed every week about it then who knows. The best thing to do is accept the vote and not talk about it much, but the more articles that talk about it the more people are going to vent their feelings on it.
It’s good to see some other ideas to increase diversity, and I’m sure a funding incentive would get results.
There’s a big divide over one potential solution that includes AWS, but there’s never only one way. I’ll be voting against the motion unless it’s significantly amended, but I think that the divisiveness and debate surrounding AWS will act as a catalyst for better solutions to be forthcoming, probably from people who would have been ambivalent to the problem were the motion not proposed and championed so thoroughly.
There is a very good reason why the motion doesn’t address diversity more widely. It’s because this is a motion about candidates for parliamentary elections. More will be coming in the Autumn arising out of the governance review, about wider diversity issues. But the party cannot wait until the Autumn to sort out the rules for selecting candidates, because no candidates can be selected until we know what the rules are.
On the idea that AWS are illiberal, I get very distressed. Why is gender so important one commenter asks. Well, because half the population is female. That’s why we have to sort out the gross underrepresentation within our party. It isn’t women OR other groups that we are trying to promote, anyway. It’s women AND other groups. But other than women and disability, it isn’t legal to create shortlists entirely of people with one of the protected characteristics.
The reason why I get distressed over attitudes on AWS is that I would have hoped that people would have understood that this is a temporary experiment to see if we can overcome a longstanding bias in the system against women. If we had a level playing field now and were proposing measures to give women permanent advantage over men across the board, then I could understand arguments against it. But we aren’t. If we don’t do this, we will have the status quo. And the status quo is an inbuilt systemic advantage for men. How is that fair? A handful of male candidates may miss out on fighting a winnable seat next time, and possibly the time after, if we pass AWS, which becomes illegal at the end of 2030. That is a shame for those male candidates. But what about all the women who are just as good, or possibly even better, but have missed out for as long as we have had a parliamentary democracy?
Come on guys (that’s a gender neutral “guys”), liberalism is about being free to do what you like up to the point where it harms others. Your opposition is focused on considering the harm to the personal ambitions of a smallish group of men of having AWS. What about the harm to vast numbers of women of not having a level playing field in any part of public life?
Sorry that is a bit of a rant but when people start talking of leaving the party if we bring in AWS temporarily, it seems a bit out of proportion. Surely you recognise we need more female representatives? We have tried everything else. If you have an idea about another way to achieve it, then tell us what it is!
@ Prue Bray “The reason why I get distressed over attitudes on AWS is that I would have hoped that people would have understood that this is a temporary experiment”.
“Temporary” means until 31 December, 2030 – i.e. after at the very least three more General Elections.
“And the status quo is an inbuilt systemic advantage for men. How is that fair?” –
So you want to replace this with an inbuilt systemic advantage for women , – for the not so foreseeable future ? How’s that fair ?
But Prue
How do you address the point that proportions of women in “winnable” and replacement MP held seats, has actually increased to the point of approx 50/50. In other words, that the issue of candidates had been “solved”. What hadn’t been solved of course, was that even less of the electorate seemed to vote for Lib Dem women in these seats than for Lib Dem men (I say “seemed” because I think we need more details of comparative swing or other stats to really know that). Embarrassingly, of course, in several seats where Lib Dem women lost out, they lost out to Tory (and I think, Labour) women candidates.
I am afraid I think the current thinking comes from a panicky “We must be seen – by the media, and such as the Fawcett Society – to be ‘doing something'”, rather than standing our ground and addressing things that are real and continuing problems. Of course we need more women coming forward, but we need more men also, and, of course, more with protected characteristics, and especially those from lower income groups.
To increase candidates coming forward we need to rebuild our reputation as a principled party, with our own USP, and a measure of electoral credibility. That is the main problem we have at present.
Other key issues are to stop and think, rather than bend to an incessant perceived need to “select early”. I have seen many cases where selecting early has led to disaster with people either having to pull out for financial, job or personal reasons, or where big fall-outs in constituencies have created bad blood with predictable results. Can we please address these real issues – yes, I know they are more difficult than the superficial ones, as it involves many people acknowledging things they would rather not discuss!
@Prue Bray
“… The reason why I get distressed over attitudes on AWS is that I would have hoped that people would have understood that this is a temporary experiment to see if we can overcome a longstanding bias in the system against women. …”
I wonder, Prue, if you could explain what you mean by “a longstanding bias in the system against women.” For all I know there may well be, it’s just not immediately clear to me what the bias is.
@Liz Adams
I thought your article was excellent. We need to better at making all new members feel comfortable joining and staying in the party, but under-represented groups especially. I hope you’ll post any progress on LDV or in the forum as it’d be great to hear more.
@David Cooper
I was hoping to avoid extra administrative costs by building on existing mechanisms. Surely we have this data kept by HQ already?
@Tim Hallam
Very much agree. If people don’t like the solutions, come up with something better.
I am no longer a member (or voter) for the Lib Dems, so it is not for me to advise the party on how to choose its candidates, but I would say that most voters will not know how the candidate for any party was selected unless there is a particularly public and controversial local falling-out over the matter. It is the quality of the individual candidate that will make the difference.
The debate over all-women shortlists is obviously a very hot topic on Lib Dem Voice, but it seems to circle around, rather than directly address, two important issues:
1. For a party that often prides itself as having “liberalism” as a unique selling point, is this sort of positive discrimination a “liberal” approach?
2. Should the representation of women be treated any differently from that of other groups defined by gender (non-binary), sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, social class, etc., and any combinations of these?
We never learn do we? Until we institute a more flexible open ended system which encourages under represented groups to rise up through the party as campaigners and councillors in their communities we will never succeed. Labour and the Tories can parachute whoever they wish into safe seats, but we don’t have any of those. All women short lists will lead to many candidates being selected without the local campaigning record needed to persuade electors to vote Lib Dem.
The problem with carrots are they can create unexpected consequences. If humans eat too many, their skins change colour.
However, I like the idea of money for local parties that strive for diversity. Rather than diversity criteria delivering funds automatically, I suggest that local parties demonstrate difference and apply to a fund administered by representatives from party groups. I’m concerned about games playing (eg nominating paper candidates of BAME origin to meet a 50% threshold).
As we all know, diversity and accessibility mean different things to different people. But we can agree that attempts to increase diversity need to consider more than gender or skin colour.
@Prue Bray. Prue can you explain what the long standing bias against selecting women candidates is?
In the 2001/2005 elections about 23% of the approved candidates list was female and about the same % of PPC’s selected was female. So no bias is evident there.
By 2015 27% of the approved candidate list was female and 55% of all MP’s standing down were replaced by female candidates. Target Seats overall had 40% female candidates. So no bias at all against selecting female candidates there -in fact a clear bias in favour of selecting women.
Incidentally 2 out of 11 MP’s who were standing down were replaced by BME candidates -18% selected in those seats is a higher ratio than BME in the general population. The fact that both candidates, for very different reasons, stood aside before polling day is no more a fault of the Party selection process than is the fact that all the selected women candidates (and most of the men) lost in the 2015 election.
Prue Bray, It’s not fair that because there’s more women they should get more rights. I’m standing up for people like ethnic minority men who are discriminated against too and I don’t think “because there’s more women” is a reason to justify further discrimination.
I understand how having a parliament that looks more diverse can aid diversity for everyone, but throwing half the CVs into the bin before the contest starts I think increases the chances that the best CV has been thrown away. It’s not about who is getting thrown away, it is the amount.
Would you want your brain to be operated on by who the doctors thought were the best, or someone chosen from a mandatory all women shortlist. I know which I would choose, and it is the same in politics.
Prue Bray
I think you are reading one comment and applying it to all opposition to AWS.
Many people will share the concern about under representation but disagree with AWS. There will be many different reasons don’t assume one part of a comment is perfectly representation of the persons opinion, let alone everyone else’s.
The argument “something must be done, this is something, this must be done” is not persuasive. I would like to see a solution that fixes any actual identified barriers and then uses a form of bribery (a bit different to this). My preference is for something that focuses on maximising the chances of female candidates not shoehorning them in to a less suited seat.
Alternative ideas have been put forward but the response to those has been attacks on the motivation of people who disagree with AWS and arguments along the lines of “it works in a PR system” and “it worked for Labour” which shouldn’t require an explanation as to why they are flawed.
I would also add that this is a decisive issue so disagreement is to be expected but the tone has been very poor. I would sum it up as:
Those opposed to AWS – “you have a bad idea” (one or two of these arguments have been poorly expressed)
Those in favour – “people opposed are bad people” (though some have reigned that in when is pointed out)
Not a great outcome. Perhaps when the dust settles after this a few people should think about how persuasive this approach was against those on their own side and consider if they think this approach is good against other parties, I suggest it isn’t.
*divisive
I feel Eddie Sammon has revealed a crucial point in this debate about the flaws in awsl. In most encounters with professionals we expect to deal with people who know what they are doing and have the qualifications to prove that they know what they are doing. Brain surgeons, civil engineers, accountants are not chosen because they are diverse but instead because they know what they are doing. In fact most real professions need to have liability insurance. If a dentist can be shown to be negligent there is the possibility of legal redress and compensation via his/her insurance. Not so with politicians which seems to prove that politicians are not truly professional in any real sense of the word.
Given that only 12% of primary school teachers are male – shouldn’t Conference be debating the need for all male short lists for primary school teaching appointments ? (Dfe figures, July 2015).
This is a good idea and incentives are definitely more desirable than sanctions. However I must give Prue applause for her well voiced comments which express my own opinionsand diminish the sense of frustration I feel that many men just refuse to see bias when they are the beneficiaries. For example Paul Holmes is happy that just 23% of approved candidates were women in 2001/5. Women form over half of the population so there is obvious bias at work preventing women from becoming candidates. Even 40% of target seats having female candidates falls short of equality.
Having all female candidates is the only way to stop the selection of those who look and sound like Liberal MPs, the familiar white male etc. This is in the main unconscious bias, not intentional, but none the less it produces inequality of opportunity within our party. Our party which has equality of opportunity at the core of its beliefs. For 30 or more years there have been attempts to change the situation through various means, all of which have failed, so surely it is time to try something more drastic.
AWS is definitely drastic but I would argue that it is not illiberal. Liberal politics is about balancing the needs and rights of different groups and individuals and sometimes this cannot be done without positive discrimination, weighing the needs of those who have been underrepresented and finding that generations of prejudice and lack of opportunity cannot be undone merely by saying, well you’re equal now, so get on with it. Finding that it cannot be undone even by encouragement and a few extra resources, because the underlying prejudice is so strong that the only way to create equality is by a temporary inequality of those who have benefited from historic superiority.
I hope that the same positive measures can be used to create equality of opportunity for minority groups as well as overturning the discrimination against the majority group of which I am a member.
@Psi
You must have been reading a very different debate to the one I’ve been reading. Most of the pro-AWS comments I have seen here have tried their best to persuade in a civilised way. In response, some (by no means all or even most) anti-AWS commenters have used words of strong condemnation, and there have been quite a few people threatening to leave the party if they don’t get their way because of the “illiberalism” of it all. Quite how people can be prepared to hold their nose at things like secret courts but then jump ship at the prospect of what would be a very small-scale experiment in AWS is something I can’t fathom.
@Eddie
“throwing half the CVs into the bin before the contest starts I think increases the chances that the best CV has been thrown away”
But Eddie, CVs are already thrown in the bin before the contest starts, because Lib Dem candidates have to be “approved” before they can apply to a seat. Have you ever complained about that? There is already a high degree of arbitrariness in the system.
@Prue Bray
“And the status quo is an inbuilt systemic advantage for men. How is that fair?”
This hits the nail on the head for me. Those who complain so forcefully about the tiny amount of overt positive discrimination that is being proposed here seem to be perfectly happy to tolerate any amount whatsoever of tacit negative discrimination.
As a non-Lib Dem this is not my fight, but good luck to you. The anti-AWS people have had things 100% their own for decades and have failed dismally to come up with an alternative that works.
I realise I haven’t anwered Alice’s point. Of course, you’re right, all these experts are selected for their expertise. They are tested through an exam system and, later on, by their experience. What you may not know is that the exam system was found to be flawed when students’ names were at the top of the paper. Academic studies showed that female names were being consistently under marked which is why exam papers are now numbered not named. Since this was introduced women have entered the professions you mention in greater and greater numbers.
Agree totally with Prue about AWS but why have the PCA shown no interest in non AWS support for women candidates like maternity leave?
I don’t want anyone to get distressed at strong opposition against AWS, as Prue has said. It is not that people are unwilling to try new things to improve gender equality, it is that this proposal seems heavy handed.
Sue S
Yes, and many shortlisting systems have been done “blind” – I am not sure whether that is the case now in Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate shortlisting. Paul Holmes doesn’t say he is “happy” that 23% of Candidates are women, what he says is there is no bias at the point of approval / selection, as it is the same proportion as the total numbers of candidates coming forward – or no statistical bias, if you like. I am sure, like most of us here, we would very much welcome nearer 50/50 split. What is being said is that AWS has no effect where the proportional difference comes in, ie relative numbers coming forward. AWS has no influence on that at all, as far as we know (unless someone knows of research in the Labour Party’s use of AWS showing it does encourage more women to come forward?
Sue S -Could you point out exactly where I said I was happy that only 23% of Approved candidates in 2001/2005 were female (and 27% in 2015)? Please don’t make things up.
But AWS is addressing the wrong problem. There is no actual evidence of bias against selecting female candidates -and more recently the bias is in discriminating in favour.
The problem is that too few women apply to become candidates in the first place not that they are not selected.
A further problem is that AWS assumes that dropping a chosen candidate into a ‘winnable’ seat means they will therefore win. But one of the most common features of our successful candidates in the last half century is that they have local connections/have built up a local profile over a period of time. Telling people they are entitled to be an MP and are guaranteed to win once dropped into a supposedly plum seat is just setting them up for a fall. Given that our Party is on the very edge of electoral oblivion that is neither fair to them or to our Party.
@Sue S
“Women form over half of the population so there is obvious bias at work preventing women from becoming candidates.”
Is that your best argument? If so, I honestly don’t think it’s a particularly good one.
For example does David Raw’s reference to there only being 12% of primary school teachers who are male mean that there is “obvious bias at work”? I certainly wouldn’t have said so, but maybe I am “obviously” wrong.
Paul in your second paragraph which states no bias there. You have completely ignored the bias which obviously comes before the process you mention as less than one in four approved candidates are women. I believe that AWS is part of a necessary culture change within the party and is vital to enable excellent women to be selected as PPCs and to send a signal to young women that they are welcome to participate at all levels in the party. I’m sure you have read about the derogatory comments made along the lines of….the kitchen is over there, as a welcome to the party, in comments at various times on LDV. There is no excuse for such demeaning remarks in the twenty first century in a party which claims to work for equality of opportunity.
Simon I realise that no argument will ever turn you from your entrenched position but much of politics is about argument and persuasion. Studies have shown that men interrupt women in discussions far more than the reverse, if women are present at a meeting the number of women is overestimated and the amount they contribute is also overestimated. This contributes to the idea that assertive women are bossy, when you need to be assertive to persuade others of the force of your argument, whereas men are regarded as forceful and persuasive. The playing field of politics is skewed against women by factors which are mostly unrecognised. I am not talking about conscious discrimination or bias but the judgements that are made in a few seconds and the habits of a lifetime. I found it very useful reading about these studies when I was a local Councillor because I realised that this biased behaviour wasn’t aimed at me personally and that I would just have to be more assertive to get my point across. A year or so later I became leader of our group on the council. As to primary school teachers I am not qualified to comment because I have never read any studies as to why men are underrepresented in that profession.
@Sue S
“You have completely ignored the bias which obviously comes before the process you mention as less than one in four approved candidates are women.”
That’s ridiculous. The fact that a given proportion of approved candidates are women is no evidence that there is bias. Just as the fact that only 12% of primary school teachers are male is no evidence that there is bias there.
But Sue – why are you not addressing the “bias” (if you want to call it that) before approval. If there were a bias among Lib Dem assessors (I was one many years ago) that would express itself in a smaller proportion of female candidates being approved than male, as a proportion of those coming forward. As far as I know that has NEVER been the case since the Lib Dem system was set up in 1993/4. In terms of the assessors, there has always been a fair proportion of both genders, and most of the time a larger number of female assessors – certainly among facilitators, and Candidates’ Committee members and Regional Candidates’ Chairs there has always been at least 50% female, and often 60 – 70%. So, if that is what you mean by bias, Sue, it simply hasn’t happened.
If you see bias in the fact that women don’t come forward as Parliamentary candidates, because of “demeaning remarks”, well, I suppose it may put small numbers off, but as my wife, who was a senior member of Candidates’ Committee in England would say, as a Candidate you have to put up with all manner of stuff from members of the public – resilience is a big essential criterion. Anyway, I would be interested to know where you think the source of any bias is. There are people in the Gender Balance Group, who have been working on this problem for years, and so far most of what has been said is linked with “lack of confidence”. Personally, I think that is a very broad brush statement, and I believe it is more to do with what women want to do, what the rewards and the waiting periods for any potential real elected job. I think it may be because societally women are expected, and expect themselves to take many more roles outside paid work than men, and can recognise wasted time when they see it. That is broad brush, but I think a lot of people have that kind of thought process. I know that when I took it on, in a middle ranking seat I couldn’t think about winning for a long time, I thought hard about that aspect – of the travel to a seat 60 miles away, ofthe meetings to get people onside, of the rather fruitless public events trying to gain a profile. Most people, let alone women, who are usually pretty practical, would think that a waste of time!
@Sue S
“As to primary school teachers I am not qualified to comment because I have never read any studies as to why men are underrepresented in that profession.”
But you don’t need to, surely? According to you the fact that only 12% of primary school teachers are male must, of itself, mean that there is bias. At least that appears to be your argument: women = 25% of approved candidates can only mean that there is bias.
There may very well be bias. I’m merely asserting that the fact that 25% of this population are male/female or 12% of that population are male/female doesn’t PROVE it.
Sue -of course there is no place for such comments and I can honestly say that in 33 years I have only ever heard one Lib Dem member make such a comment -and that was in the 1980’s. In the same period of time I have witnessed three members voice Homophobic Views and have taken it up with each one at the time.
In all those years I have never known a time when we had enough serious candidates -who were willing to put the work in – so the idea that as a Party we would have been turning people away because of their gender is just ludicrous.
Why do women apply in much smaller numbers to be candidates from Cllr upwards? I don’t know. But that is where the Parties efforts need to go -not into divisive, illiberal measures which, given our complete lack of safe seats, are unlikely to achieve their stated purpose.
Tim13 -your experience of taking on a seat 60 miles away resonates with many comments that are made about the cost of being a serious PPC, uprooting family/job etc to move around the country seeking a winnable seat.
But is that part of the false prospectus that many LD Candidates are being sold about how success is achieved? In the 2001 Parliamentary intake most of our new MP’s were elected for the seat where they lived and had variously lived, campaigned and stood for election for some time. MP’s such as Patsy Calton, Annette Brooke, Sue Orchard Doughty, Ricky Younger Ross, John Barrett and Norman Lamb. In my case I had at that point lived, worked and raised a family in my constituency for 22 years and had been campaigning for the Liberal Democrats locally for 18 years. Further back there are examples like David Penhaligon and Ming Campbell and later on people like Lynne Featherstone, Tim Farron, Gordon Birtwistle and Ian Swales.
I would suggest that, post Coalition meltdown, we are back into the long haul for electing MP’s and local profile is going to count for much more than being parachuted into a seat two or three years beforehand. Candidates who are being told they have a right to be elected and there is an easy way to success are in for major disappointment.
Tim13 regarding resilience. We are talking about the Liberal Democrats here, a party with certain values, the idea that there’s no problem with a few demeaning comments from party members because such remarks teach resilience is extraordinary. Would that idea be applied to casually racist remarks? Of course not!
Anyway as a candidate I found the public seemed to view a candidate with a baby in tow most benignly. The party was the problem.
@Paul Holmes
“Why do women apply in much smaller numbers to be candidates from Cllr upwards? I don’t know. But that is where the Parties efforts need to go -not into divisive, illiberal measures which, given our complete lack of safe seats, are unlikely to achieve their stated purpose.”
Paul, it is not a binary choice. We can and should do both. Doing the first does not exclude highly energetic moves on the second. Indeed the first will probably stimulate the second.
By the way, I know the answer to your question (Why do women apply in much smaller numbers…?). It’s because every gathering of Lib Dem activists at grass roots level, leaflet delivery evenings, fund raising evenings, canvass sessions, branch meetings etc has been completely dominated by men. This is changing but we are coming from a default position where men dominate the grassroots to a revolting degree.
David Raw 3rd Mar ’16 – 6:54pm
“Given that only 12% of primary school teachers are male – shouldn’t Conference be debating the need for all male short lists for primary school teaching appointments ? (Dfe figures, July 2015).”
yes it’s just bring the discussion back to men, shall we?
Ruth Bright
Demeaning comments are a problem wherever they arise, of course. We all know, however, that comments reported or written verbatim are often interpretable in a different way from how they are when actually uttered verbally! This can be either way – the underlying message given by the speaker can be more negative than the way it comes over in print, or, in fact more positive (if, for instance it is some sort of teasing). In addition, the phrase “many a true word spoken in jest” may apply, in which case it may be wise not to use teasing too freely! But the world is full of humour relying on this (I do not refer to the type of regressive non-humour of eg Godfrey Bloom, about sluts and cleaning behind the fridge, which bears no real relation to any kind of humour most of us would recognise). Most men and women grow up with an appreciation, and ability to weather this type of thing.
This is very different from seriously meant demeaning, which does need to be addressed. I do agree with Paul Holmes, by the way, about homophobia, and there have been considerable numbers of homophobic statements I have heard over the years in a Lib Dem context. As Lib Dems, we have values, as Ruth has said, where we treat people as individuals, and respect their different characteristics. I have had many many conversations over the years with people about group prejudices and stereotypes they seem to carry – and I can certainly say that Lib Dems are not immune from them. How we clean up our act on that is an open question.
@Ruth Bright
“Anyway as a candidate I found the public seemed to view a candidate with a baby in tow most benignly. The party was the problem.”
What exactly does “the party was the problem” mean? If you are alleging that the Party is or was institutionally sexist then perhaps you could explain in a little more detail.
If potential candidates are put off applying for anything by demeaning or insulting remarks, they should be aware that the volume of abuse will increase dramatically should they ever be elected – no matter how good they are and what gender they are.
Paul Holmes is correct in saying that the proportion of women fighting key seats and those of retiring MPs actually showed that female candidates were not victims of any bias in the selction process.
Many of our candidates elected to Parliament in the past were elected because of their long track record as community activists, campaigners and councillors. No party has been more critical of parachuted in outsiders than we have. For those who think that fighting a so-called winnable seat is anything other than a tough, long term, costly, demanding task, where the chances of losing are high – should think again.
We have had a number of male and female candidates in the recent past, who were fighting “good prospects” drop out before the election, when the harsh reality of what they were up against hit them. Those candidates who have worked in and know a seat well are far more likely to last the course.
The party in Scotland has just agreed to a set of diversity proposals and AWS which are stronger in many ways than those proposed for debate in York.
However, unless our support north of the border increases dramatically, it will leave the party with an all male group of MSPs in Scotland this MAy, no female MEP and an all male group of Westminster MPs, as well as many local parties who have been told they must bin any CVs from long term hard working committed campaigners and councillors, who might want to just apply to fight for the party in the seat they have made a commitment to.
With the sad death of Charles Kennedy it is beyond belief to now be in the position where the party in Scotland would have had to say to him, had he survived, that he was not even allowed to apply to fight to regain his old seat.
“Bonkers” – is the only word I can use to describe what we are doing.
Simon Shaw – I have written so many times about this on LDV since 2011 that I worry about repeating myself. To those who have heard/read about this before please accept my apologies and read instead a new piece on diversity from the wonderful David Buxton.
For Simon and John and I go over it yet again. In my article “None shall be enslaved by maternity?”I make it clear that the lack of assured maternity leave for candidates made my life such a misery as a PPC that I could no longer continue. I was totally ground down by attitudes that pregnant women do not experience in the normal world of work eg being asked to attend to party matters 48 hours after a C-section with a baby in the special care unit fighting for her life.
John – we are not talking about the odd demeaning remark here. I had had eight on a tough inner city council when I became a rural PPC. Labour’s nicknames for me in Southwark were: “Barbie” “Morticia” and “Mata Hari” I was used to a very nasty political atmosphere. I am not a wallflower and to put it mildly I do not come from a sheltered background. But nothing, I repeat nothing has shocked me as much as the sheer unkindness I faced from my own party: “walking caesarean”, an annoying woman should “be milked”, comparing two lib dem women’s breast sizes in a ward meeting etc etc.
Sorry – I meant to say eight years on Southwark Council.
@Paul Walter.
Two points Paul. Firstly you say we must adopt AWS -why? There is no evidence of bias against selecting women across our Party. Let me once again repeat the statistics which absolutely no advocate of AWS will respond to however many times I point them out. In 2001/2005 and 2015 (I have not seen figures for 2010) our Party, across the board selected women PPC’s in more or less equal proportion to the ratio of women on the approved candidates list. But by 2015 we were actually selecting female PPC’s for our very best seats at a considerably higher rate than that, with 40% in all Target Seats and 55% where MP’s were standing down. So what problem are we trying to solve here?
As for your certain knowledge of why women apply in smaller numbers to be candidates do you have research to back that up or is it just an opinion? To me it seems to be a much wider issue in society. For example I recently read Neil Fawcett’s write up for ALDC of Lorna Dupre’s brilliant Council gain in Cambridgshire. The photo of the celebrating team contained 5 men and 2 women. A Mark Pack article about a female candidate selected for the London Assembly elections had a photo showing similar ratios. Last summer I was walking in the Derbyshire Peaks and picked up a National Trust leaflet about planting they had undertaken on Kinder Scout -the photo of volunteers was heavily male dominated. Another photo in my local paper showed 11 volunteers carrying out a pre restoration archaeological dig at the site of an eighteenth century canal bridge/road crossing. Eight of them were male. To pretend that this is a Lib Dem problem that can be solved by illiberal measures is surely not sustainable.
Will banning men from even being considered in many of our ‘winnable’ seats (or all in the Scottish case) lead to a rush of women suddenly seeking to be Candidates at all levels -and canvassers -and deliverers -and Exec Officers? Will constantly denigrating men as stale, pale and male or as being active to a ‘revolting degree’ in your words actually help matters?
I just do not understand the logic of a) trying to solve a problem of selection bias which the evidence clearly shows does not exist b) when we face electoral extinction seeking to ban some of our strong local, campaigning candidates on the grounds of their chromosomes.
@Ruth Bright
Thanks for pointing me at your 2011 LDV article.
Based on what you say there it seems that because the Party’s rules do not specify that a PPC shall be permitted up to 12 months maternity leave (or, I assume, 12 months paternity leave), then you think that it is indeed institutionally sexist.
Rather than fully fledged maternity or paternity leave, maybe what is needed is a measure of basic human understanding. From what you say it sounds as if people in London weren’t always very good at that.
@Paul Holmes
I totally agree with what you say.
I have two real concerns:
1. That we are quite likely to have fewer Lib Dem MPs elected as a result of all this. A number of members have said on LDV that they consider this a price worth paying. I happen to disagree.
2. That there is the danger that taking the sort of actions that some members seem to want confirms in the public’s mind that the Liberal Democrats have, in the past, adopted a (to use Paul Walter’s term) “revolting” attitude towards aspirant women candidates. I don’t think that is the case.
If people think there has been bias, will they please spell it out. As I’ve said before, the problem at the last GE was that, despite being offered a plethora of first rate female candidates in “winnable” seats, and excellent female sitting MPs, the public (in their infinite wisdom) didn’t happen to elect any of them.
Calling for AWS carries the clear message to the public that we think that the blame lies wholly with us.
Simon Shaw
“That we are quite likely to have fewer Lib Dem MPs elected as a result of all this. A number of members have said on LDV that they consider this a price worth paying. I happen to disagree..”
Actually what happened is that on every thread about AWS you have tried desperately to get someone to say they would support AWS even if it meant less Lib Dem MP’s . As I recall one person fell into your trap. I suppose to be fair one is “a number”. In fact AWS is more likely to increase the number of Lib Dem MP’s elected. It is difficult to understand why you think looking like a party from the Fifties is the road to electoral success.
Paul
The problem we’re trying to solve is the overbearing male culture of the party and I believe AWS will provide a breakthrough in that.
Research? Yes. I’ve kept this quiet but let me reveal exclusively here today that over the last 25 years I have covertly infiltrated the Lib Dems under cover of delivering 9 million wheel barrow loads of Focii to attend party meetings and campaign events up and down the country. I am writing a book on the subject. So my research has revealed that the party is improving but that it is coming from a place of being ridiculously male dominated. One meeting of a local party I attended last year had 29 local male members and just one female. How on earth can we provide a welcome home to girls and women in that sort of ludicrous atmosphere? (And by the way, contrary to your examples, a local Green Party contingent at the same meeting had a majority of females).
By the way, I was in two minds on AWS until I read your and Simon Shaw’s comments here. That convinced me.
I suspect that nobody has the full answer as to why fewer women apply to be parliamentary candidates than men and maybe that questioned should be answered first.
When I was a councillor for two terms in Edinburgh, the gender balance of the group was 50/50. Most of my male council colleagues applied to be PPCs while most female colleagues did not. I was told by those who thought they knew the answer, that it would likely be about childcare and a range of other domestic issues, so I asked the women who did not apply, “why not?”
All had won council elections and all were able and capable of being excellent Westminster candidates, but still chose not to apply.
The single most common answer was that they wanted to combine their politics and their existing careers, rather than give up their jobs to become full time MPs. It was a positive choice, not some form of discrimination or bias. With our lack of recent electoral success, had any been elected to Westminster, they would now probably be unemployed exMPs rather than enjoying a different life.
The one who did stand had two young children and was elected to the Scottish Parliament. I was not aware of any problem relating to her being a young mother or having children. In fact it was a strength and an asset in her campaign that she could related well to the many women who had been turned off by male dominated politics.
The assumption that lack of women equals bias in some form is not necessarily the case. I have every sympathy with Ruth and her terrible experience, but even that does not justify the course of action currently proposed, which will not actually deal with any of the idiots who made such remarks. They will need to be dealt with in other ways.
There is no point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That is, throwing out potentially good male candidates because some “d**k-heads” have behaved in the way described by Ruth.
I was on the losing side of the debate on diversity and am in a minority in the party in Scotland but, as we know, being in the minority does not necessarily mean that I am wrong.
The Scottish Conference also voted to end the moratorium on fracking and I opposed that decision too.
Hopefully I might be on the side of the majority on the fracking debate in York, even if I am in the minority in the diversity debate.
Good grief. I hope these two men don’t have any influence over other members.
@AndrewR
“Actually what happened is that on every thread about AWS you have tried desperately to get someone to say they would support AWS even if it meant less Lib Dem MP’s . As I recall one person fell into your trap.”
I’m fairly certain that’s not what I asked (i.e. I didn’t refer to AWS). What I asked was what would members prefer: 8 MPs who all happen to be male, or (say) 5 MPs of whom 1 is female. In fact more than one member (I assume they were members) said they would prefer a smaller, but more diverse group of MPs.
“In fact AWS is more likely to increase the number of Lib Dem MP’s elected.”
Why, exactly? Unless you believe that those who are responsible for selecting PPCs are biased against all women (and where is your evidence for that?) barring half or two-thirds of the approved candidates from being eligible to be chosen as PPC in a given constituency must sure mean that, on occasions a “sub-optimal” PPC will be chosen. Of course, without AWS, in many cases women would have been chosen as the “optimal” candidate (and Paul has clearly explained that happened in the last 5 years).
The problem is that, unlike the Conservatives and Labour Parties, we do not have scores or hundreds of “safe” seats. We simply cannot afford the possibility of fielding a “sub-optimal” PPC in any of our winnable seats.
BTW, AndrewR, you’re not based in London are you?
Ruth – it just annoys me how sheerly rude and offensive some of these people are. In our relatively rural area here, the only mention of breast sizes I have heard was at the Town Council count last May. That, incidentally, was by a Tory woman, speaking of her own, in relation to her apparently low number of votes. There were a couple of other Tory candidates (female) there, and I am afraid I moved away without any comment. She was actually elected, although the 5th place (of 5 councillors for the ward) – I was 3rd, amidst the bevy of successful Tories.
The punchline is that she, along with another newly elected Town Councillor in another ward (Tory male, this time) has just resigned. I am pretty sure that is not as a result of demeaning remarks, and so we have a poll on April 14th to see if we can do better this time than last May!! In the context of gender balance, our candidate in my ward will be a woman, and although not yet confirmed, it is likely the other candidate will be too. Around here we are 3 men and 3 women on Town Council, with a male leader, 3 women and 3 men on District, with a female leader, and one female County Councillor. So we can’t get much closer to balance than that.
AWS is a confidence trick. The people promoting it think it will strengthen women at the expense of men. It will not have that effect. We know what effect it will have because we have seen it in action in the Blair-Mandelson Labour Party. The women who were elected as Labour MPs under AWS in 1997 did not transform politics, and they did not transform the status of women. They were ultra-loyalist lobby fodder for Blair-Mandelson, and by necessary implication, the elite (the less than 1% of the less than 1%) that turned the key in Blair-Mandelson’s back. All of them voted for the Iraq War. Why would they not do that? They owed their loyalty, not to their members and constituents, but to the party leadership that gave them their careers (and by necessary implication, the less than visible forces behind that leadership). Far from empowering women, AWS would further augment the power and influence of the richest and most powerful in our society, all of whom are men.
If the Liberal Democratic Party is not a democratic movement ruled by its members it has no reason to exist.
Very good point “Sesenco” 11.21pm
Sesenco. Actually those women did transform politics because as Caron and others have pointed out they put childcare on the agenda. No party was interested much in childcare before those women were elected. Now no party would dare remove the 15 hours free childcare that pre-school children enjoy. Two thirds of unpaid childcare is done by women so childcare transforms women’s lives.
It is a painful irony that the forthcoming conference which will debate AWS is the first federal conference the Lib Dems have ever held which will not have a crèche.
Ruth Bright
Re-provision of creche facilities (failure to do). Perhaps unfortunately, this re-emphasises a point I have made throughout our long debates on LDV about increasing diversity. That is, that financial support is crucial in making sure we and any other parties get a diverse candidate field. Wherever that support comes from! If it is not there, candidates cannot carry out their roles in an effective, self-fulfilling and with the most likelihood of succeeding. If all candidates are essentially self-funding and self-supporting, as used to be the case many years ago, Lib Dems from any ordinary background will find it super-difficult to make progress.
By the way, Sesenco, I think you overstate the case against the 1997 nuLab women – among them are several examples of people who have made considerable independent minded impact.
Sesenco is correct in saying that the vast majority of those women Labour MPs he referred to provided Tony Blair with a degree of loyalty during the Iraq War debate which allowed him to push his agenda, regardless of what those like Robin Cook in the party thought was the right way forward. This party loyalty was derived from the fact that their election was directly dependent on central party support for their election.
Can I just check Sesenco? You seem to be saying that women selected by a particular mechanism don’t think for themselves and blindly follow the instructions of men, yes?
Paul, I think you must have missed John Barrett’s post immediately above yours. John was in the HoC at the time. I think we can rely on his testimony.
@Paul Walter “You seem to be saying that women selected by a particular mechanism don’t think for themselves and blindly follow the instructions of men, yes?”
I interpreted Sesenco’s comments as meaning that MPs of any gender would feel less loyalty or accountability to local members if they owed their positions to the leadership at the centre.
@Paul Walter – I think it’s pretty clear that Sesenco is saying that placemen (of either gender) owe their loyalty to those who put them there. I would however hope that Liberal Democrat MPs would show more independence than Labour MPs.
@Paul Walter
“Can I just check Sesenco? You seem to be saying that women selected by a particular mechanism don’t think for themselves and blindly follow the instructions of men, yes?”
As others have said he isn’t saying that.
But that is missing the crucial point for a Party which currently has 8 MPs and which could have “notionally” fewer than that when the Boundary Commission concludes its processes.
What matters to me is whether women selected by a particular mechanism can be expected to have a greater or lesser chance of securing election as MPs as compared to PPCs selected in the “normal” way. I’ve explained why I fear we are likely to end up with (even) fewer MPs. Perhaps you would try to explain to me and others why you think we are mistaken. Or is it just “a price worth paying”?
Simon Shaw
I don’t agree. Indeed I don’t agree extremely strongly. I haven’t read your explanation. I believe AWS will provide a cultural shift which will encourage a greater number of high quality women candidates to come forward.
@Paul Walter
My explanation was this:
“Unless you believe that those who are responsible for selecting PPCs are biased against all women (and where is your evidence for that?) barring half or two-thirds of the approved candidates from being eligible to be chosen as PPC in a given constituency must sure mean that, on occasions a “sub-optimal” PPC will be chosen. Of course, without AWS, in many cases women would have been chosen as the “optimal” candidate (and Paul has clearly explained that happened in the last 5 years).
The problem is that, unlike the Conservatives and Labour Parties, we do not have scores or hundreds of “safe” seats. We simply cannot afford the possibility of fielding a “sub-optimal” PPC in any of our winnable seats.”
In contrast you hold an opposite view because you “believe AWS will provide a cultural shift which will encourage a greater number of high quality women candidates to come forward.”
The problem is that your belief has got to work over the next two or three years. If it doesn’t work out then we are stuffed.
Simon Shaw
We’re just gong to have to agree to disagree. I don’t agree with your prognosis.
I’m very uncomfortable with the suggestion that women selected via AWS are “place people”. They would be there as a result of the democratic decision of party conference, their own CV and skill and the decision of the local party.
Secondly, this Labour history rewriting doesn’t stand up to inspection. For every Labour woman chosen through AWS who supported Blair loyally I can give you a Labour man who also supported him loyally. Jacqui Smith was chosen through AWS. She supported Blair loyally. John Reid wasn’t chosen through AWS. He supported Blair loyally. So what? Tony Blair had a vast corpus of loyal MPs chosen through AWS and non-AWS.
All the Lib Dem MPs who supported their party leader on the Iraq war weren’t chosen by AWS. So, presumably they supported their leader because they weren’t chosen by AWS. Eh?
The New Labour example given by Sesenco and backed by others is without foundation.
Paul Walter, You say “For every Labour woman chosen through AWS who supported Blair loyally I can give you a Labour man who also supported him loyally.” Please show us your lists of both and we can then do some analysis on it.
I believe AWS will provide a cultural shift which will encourage a greater number of high quality women candidates to come forward.
Yes your belief in AWS will provide a cultural shift, but not necessarily the one you are hoping for. The most troublesome aspect of AWS is the dramatic limiting of ‘judgement’ in the selecting of candidates and the institutionalisation of discrimination in the LibDem party…
This institutionalisation of discrimination is not something we should not dismiss lightly, we only need to look at the Caste syste in India to see the effects of both discrimination (in the traditional Caste system) and in the laws that were put in place in an attempt to overcome the discrimination which have now created a whole new set of problems.
Secondly, remember a factor in Labour’s decision to use AWS, was that it had a large number of women who weren’t being selected, so effectively for one election – and the one they stood the most chance of winning in a generation, they imposed AWS. I’ve seen no evidence that the LibDems are in a similar position…
John Reid did NOT support Blair loyally – he frequently cut loose on what you might call “the hard right”.
Tim13
He was a loyal minister of Blair’s for ten years. Very loyal. He was Blair’s “go to” minister. And:
In March 2003, he voted against a motion that the case had not yet been made for war against Iraq,[97] and voted for the declaration of war against Iraq.[98] In June 2007, he voted against a motion calling for an independent inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors into the Iraq War.[99]
David Evans
You show me your list and I’ll show you mine. Joke
Out of the 35 MPs elected for Labour via AWS in 1997, 34 were still MPs at the time of the Iraq War vote (Jenny Jones stood down in 2001). Of those 34, 8 voted against the government on the war vote which is 23.5%.
Of the overall parliamentary Labour party, 33.2% voted against the government.
For such small samples this difference may not be very significant.
Source http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05057.pdf (full list of MPs elected from AWS is in appendix 2).
Thanks Paul. Looking at it from another angle: 244 Labour MPs voted for war with Iraq. Allowing for Tony Blair himself, that means 217 MPs NOT selected by AWS followed TB on Iraq compared to 26 who were. So it seems that a non-AWS system was SEVEN times more likely to produce a TB loyal MP than the AWS system. I say that with tongue slightly in cheek, but it shows that this “AWS produces blind loyalists” line of argument is feintly ridiculous.
Paul – as I am sure you are aware, there was much more to it than that and not just relating to the Iraq war vote..
The trouble is not that those apposing the current proposals are against change or improving the existing the system. What many opposing the current motion are saying is that the current proposals, including AWS, will simply not deliver what its supporters think it will. If in doubt, the following words from a Labour MP (Bob Marshall-Andrews) who experienced this at first hand are worth reading.
“Analysis of the vote against the Iraq War reveals an unhappy lack of support among women Labour back-benchers. In a long and hard-fought debate, four Labour women spoke against the war (Diane Abbott, Glenda Jackson, Alice Mahon and Lynne Jones). From 139 Labour MPs who voted against the war, just 15 were women.
Certainly, those who hoped that the presence of more women in the Commons would act as a brake on the more bellicose natures of their male counterparts have been sadly disappointed.
However, it is equally necessary to say that the vast influx of young women that attended upon the 1997 General Election, and the steadily incremental increase in their numbers as of result of women-only shortlists (involving the concomitant rejection of men of character and ability), has not fulfilled Emily’s hopes.
Interesting studies into dissidence among the Parliamentary Labour Party in 2005-6 reveal uncomfortable facts for the proponents of Emily’s List.
During this important period, the Government embarked on a programme of legislation aimed at restricting personal and civil liberty, and parliamentary battles and dissent were commonplace. On at least one occasion, 106 Labour MPs voted against their Whip. Of these only 20 were women and just four had been elected in 2005.”
I would be delighted to be given the opportunity to select able female candidates as PPCs and then to help them get elected to Parliament, but not by saying that we have to stop good males from applying for the same seats.
I would have serious concern if the candidates I have to choose from have only been prepared to come forward after they have found out there will be no men applying for the same seat. Living in a seat with a good prospect of the party regaining it and now the prospect of an AWS, this will not fill the membership and activists or even voters, with the confidence they need in order to support the party again
Many thanks John.
I sat behind Bob Marshall- Andrews on a beach for two hours once. Small world.
I am rather surprised to hear you quoting him as a major basis for your point. He was virtually a permanent rebel. – Good for him, but most MPs aren’t and don’t have to be. Indeed, most male MPs follow their leader most of the time. No one seems to particularly question their ability to think for themselves. So why is this point significant? I am genuinely confused.
Paul – I just thought it worth mentioning that the rosy picture painted by Lindsay of the influx resulting from AWS in the Labour party was not even shared by those in the Labour party. Bob was just one of many Labour MPs who expressed such views. It was not a major basis of my point. I am surprised he did not share his thoughts that day on the beach 🙂
I believe there are many other stronger arguments against the current proposals, but I have said enough on this issue and as I will not be in York, I shall now to leave it to those attending the York conference to continue the discussion and make the final decision.
My own constituency will have an all-women shortlist, as the decision for seats in Scotland was taken last week in Edinburgh. I hope, as a result, we get a great Lib-Dem female MP elected in 2020, but I cannot believe that the best way to achieve that is to say; to the defeated Lib-Dem MP in 2015 (who managed to increase his vote last time but still lost to the SNP tidal wave), to every councillor in Edinburgh and the only ones who survived are in Edinburgh West and to our most active and high profile campaigners, that they cannot even apply for selection. I accept that that is now all history.
As someone who has held almost every post in the local party, delivered leaflets and knocked on thousands of doors for over 30 years, who has been elected locally and nationally and who has been a constituency agent and campaign manager, I know how hard it was to win elections when the circumstances were far more favourable than today.
We will be guilty of misleading potential candidates if this motion passes and we then tell them that there are winnable Parliamentary seats out there just waiting for the right female (or male) candidate to go for. This will, I fear, come back to haunt us during the next election, when those candidates who thought they were about to be elected discover the truth and drop out of the campaign.
Good luck if you are participating in the debate in York and I hope that whatever the result, the members and the party will unite, move forward and elect more than 8 MPs next time round.
Paul – sorry, my comments on two strings of this discussion, this and Lindsay Northover’s have now joined up.
Time for me to follow my own advice and say no more.