I’ve been worried for weeks about how the vote would go on our crucial Diversity motion at Scottish conference on Saturday. I’ve spent the past 4 years as Convener of Scottish Women Liberal Democrats and Convener of Campaigns & Candidates (Scotland) driving forward all the measures we say as a party should ensure we get equal numbers of women elected to men: talent spotting, encouraging, running targeted training sessions, mentoring and supporting women across the party to get selected and elected.
Just like at Westminster now, we had an opportunity 5 years ago when we lost 11 of our Scottish Parliamentarians in the May 2011 election, to ensure the next set of candidates we presented to the electorate would be more gender balanced. But we have failed. I am the only woman who tops a regional list for the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016 (we get most of our seats from regional lists) and we have very little chance of increasing the gender balance of our MSP group. Why has this happened? Well a mixture of reasons but we do need to face the fact that there is a strong culture of deference in our party, maybe more so north than south of the border, where if a former parliamentarian or even a prominent local man wants to run for a winnable seat, women drop out of the running (or don’t even put their names forward in the first place). There is also a tendency amongst some members to think that behaviour they approve of in a male candidate is not appropriate in an equally good female candidate, which doesn’t help in selection contests.
We have spent years if not decades struggling with the fact we are a liberal party, instinctively against quotas, all women shortlists or any similar measures, but we must now accept that we have fallen so far behind Labour, the SNP and even the Tories, on gender balance that it is embarrassing. We cannot go through another election cycle thinking that ‘fixing the women’ by training, mentoring etc is the answer. So our fabulously brave party leader in Scotland, Willie Rennie, decided this summer to take the bull by the horns. He set up a working group on gender balance containing prominent sceptics of positive discrimination and worked closely with them to get a workable set of proposals ready for spring conference.
The result was the doubled headed motion we debated in Edinburgh on Saturday. Alongside many measures to radically change the culture of the party, the key bones of contention were that for the next 5 year parliamentary cycle: our top MEP candidate must be a woman, the top 5 Westminster target seats must have all women shortlists and 5 of the top 10 Holyrood target seats must have all women shortlists (the specifics of the latter dependent on the results in this May’s Holyrood elections).
These 3 measures, for Europe, Westminster and Holyrood, were argued over fiercely during the debate. Jo Swinson proposed the motion in a very powerful speech. Alison McInnes MSP’s speech was so moving it brought tears to my and many other eyes, while those arguing to retain the status quo brought audible gasps from some in the room as they asserted that any such measures were discriminating against men and would prevent the best candidate getting selected. New young female members seeking about feeling encouraged to stand for election due to the measures in the motion had a powerful effect, as did Willie’s rousing plea at the end of the debate, to al members to come with him on this journey.
It felt very tense in the room as the cards were counted and I only realised I was holding my breath when the result was announced: three quarters of conference had backed the proposals! I almost couldn’t believe we had finally won. That we were at last taking gender balance seriously in the Scottish party and starting down a path that will radically alter the status quo. I think what really swung it was both Willie’s personal plea to members to come with him even if they feel uncomfortable about it plus the powerful arguments from so many who had previously been against AWS that nothing else has worked and the time had come to take the radical step.
I know it won’t be comfortable for everyone, but, as I said in my speech in the debate, I don’t care if some people think I am a token woman because I have the confidence to know I’m not. What I do care about it creating a path for other less confident or experienced women in the party, to show them we are serious about diversity in deed as well as word, to inspire them to choose to become our next generation of parliamentarians.
For our party, Saturday was a truly glorious day for diversity. We may have bumps in the road, but we are at least on the right path at last. I hope we have shown our federal colleagues the way, as I know Tim Farron was as delighted with Saturday’sresult as we all were and as keen to see a more diverse set of parliamentarians as Willie is. So long as we don’t become ‘Willie’s babes’ (pace Tony Blair), I’ll be happy.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A true US populist would support vaccination in poorer communities
The doubting Tories
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
How populists win culture battles while losing the culture war - The Week in Polls
Has the time come for the United Kingdom to reconsider who its true allies are?
Dominic
David Murray
Joe Bourke
Steve Trevethan
22 Comments
Katy – I fear that there will be a number of unintended consequences resulting from the diversity motion and I do not believe it will deliver what its supporters intend.
I was not a supporter of the proposals and accept that I am now on the losing side of the debate.
As I mentioned to Caron in another discussion on Lib Dem Voice, it does appear that there was a reluctance to actually tackle the issue in time for it to have any impact on the elections where it would have most impact – on the lists this May.
This will probably see our only female MSP lose her seat and an all male group be returned to Holyrood. Sadly, some who supported the motion told me that they were happy to do so, because it would have no impact in the Scottish elections this year and the results this May will likely entrench our male MSPs.
If we only manage to hang on to the one Westminster seat we currently hold, the proposals passed allow the party once again to have a 100% male Westminster group, as the Orkney and Shetland seat will not be covered by the proposed changes, as it will have an MP at the time of selection. Even if Alistair Carmichael decides to stand down, this will allow Tavish Scott, or any other male to get selected in that seat.
If there was an honest attempt to get the five most winnable Westminster seats in Scotland contested by female candidates, why leave out the one seat we are most likely to win.
The above two points could well result in all male groups at both Holyrood and Westminster. I hope we do make gains, but if we do not, that is a likely result.
If the European results are similar to last time we will not have a Scottish MEP either.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear the above might well be the actual result.
In the many other local parties where we struggle to find candidates, even in good seats, ruling out any, good, effective, committed local campaigner on the grounds of gender is a sure way to destroy morale in local parties.
What do Scottish Liberal Democrats think of “Women 50-50”? Have you read their blog on intersectionality? It’s very weak.
“At this point, I tend to simply tweet the person a selfie”.
“Women 50-50 does not attempt to answer for everyone”.
It’s not good enough when proposing legislation to only focus on one inequality group. Now the Lib Dems are taking intersectionality seriously, but is it not worrying that apparently over half of Scottish MSPs support mandatory 50%+ women candidates and this is all it seems they have to say about other inequalities? I can’t find anything on their website about race or disability or anything. Just think blog post so far.
https://women5050.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/proudly-intersectional/
Just this blog post sorry, not “think”.
@ Katy Gordon, “Scottish Liberal Democrats set radical new tone”. Err, sorry, no.
I’m very sorry but I have to agree with John on the issue you raise for the reasons he gives. I also have to disagree with the ‘radical new tone’ headline following a decision on a political rather than internal matter – the fracking vote.
Yet again – on yet another issue – we have the party standing on its head after Willie has campaigned so strongly on the issue. And it’s not just Wille…..
In April the Guardian reported, ‘A staffer for Lib Dem spokeswoman for energy and climate change Tessa Munt confirmed that stopping fracking would be one of her priorities in the next parliament and that this involved working within the party to change its stance. She joined environment spokesman Roger Williams and five of her front bench colleagues in signing the pledge.
I don’t need to mention Tessa’s gender – it’s irrelevant – but the motion passed on fracking is a gift horse to Patrick Harvie and the Greens. I can well see them taking our list seats when not only will we have no women but we may have no men.
David – you are spot on when you say our list seats are under threat from the Greens.
There are many Liberal Democrat voters who strongly oppose fracking and will use the fracking issue as a reason to give their list vote to the Greens, even if they still give the party their constituency vote.
……….unless Willie reverses this u-turn quickly.
@ John – Yes, that’s right and it will happen if Willie doesn’t put his foot down and disown the amendment. It’s that serious.
Interesting to note the policy statements of two other party leaders :
“Scotland should keep taxes low and lift the ban on GM crops and fracking, the leader of the Scottish Tories has said. Ruth Davidson.” BBC News 26 August, 2015. also …
“Scottish Labour has announced that, if elected in 2016, we would use the new Smith powers to stop onshore fracking in Scotland”…… Kezia Dugdale, 24 January, 2015.
I ask three question : who were the movers of the amendment at Conference ? What were their qualifications ? Did they have any interests to declare ?
Eddie Sammon, people can simultaneously be women AND disabled, BAME etc
Unless you are saying we don’t want AWS with white, middle-class, able-bodied women. Is that what you are saying?
Ewan Hoyle moved the amendment and Graeme Cowie summated it – you can see from their candidate biographies that their only relevant interest is one in evidence based policy making.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/ewan_hoyle
http://www.libdems.org.uk/graeme_cowie
@ Hannah Bettsworth Thank you. So no specialist technical engineering qualifications then.
Phyllis, what I’m saying is some radical thinking gets me worried. I know people can simultaneously be female, BAME, disabled, trans, from a lower income background etc, but if the laws proposed only deal with women then we’ll just see a load of relatively privileged women succeed at the expense of lesser privileged women and some disadvantaged men. Women 50-50’s proposal is for at least 50% women, and nothing else, so I don’t see how this is anything other than a recipe for privileged women to succeed.
I’m not a fan of hard quotas, but if people have them they should at least be more than about gender.
Sadly all this will ensure is that we won’t gain Edinburgh West in 2020, because the Scottish party have just said to Mike Crockart “Go away. We don’t want you”. Likewise in any of the top five seats where a local man has been or is prepared to work like mad to establish a personal presence (and let’s be honest with ourselves, with the possible exception of O&S it will be a local name established over the next four years, or more likely the next nine years, that will be our only hope), the message is simple – Yes work like mad, sacrifice everything, just keep the seat warm until one of our chosen women is parachuted in to take it off you.
There are few enough seats where we are close in Scotland now, and just as I would totally support Mike in Edinburgh West, I would totally support Jo in Dunbartonshire, but supporting someone else, man or woman, who is just dropped in with two or three years to go is simply too little too late.
Katy you may well get your wish that “as a party should ensure we get equal numbers of women elected to men,” but none of each may be a success for your personal view of equality, but to me it is simply an abandonment of Liberal Democracy, and that is what you will get.
Ultimately, the Scottish party has chosen the inward looking personal perfection of electoral oblivion over reaching outwards to grasp success and actually delivering Liberal Democrat values to its local communities.
A collection of bald (wo)men fighting over a comb. No surprise that this passed when anyone who questioned it is basically told they don’t belong in a Liberal Party.
Congratulations to our Scottish friends, I really hope The Federal Party follows your lead. Its obvious from the 13 comments so far that this move has really upset a lot of people who want things to stay as they are – that could almost be a definition of Liberalism.
Paul, as usual you have got it all wrong. The people against this are the ones who want Liberal Democracy to succeed, but sadly too many of those who favour AWS seem to prefer the irrelevance of personal perfection to that of delivering real Liberal Democracy in councils, assemblies and parliaments. Sadly all of us and even more importantly all our communities who rely on us will suffer for this self indulgence.
Eddie “Women 50-50’s proposal is for at least 50% women, and nothing else, so I don’t see how this is anything other than a recipe for privileged women to succeed.”
The thing is, woman are the largest group discrimated against in the party. I don’t know how many lib Dems are from BAME groups or disabled or trans et but I would imagine it would be quite small. i think the Party is still populated heavily by middle class white members so you’re gonna be hard put to achieve equality unless more people from those groups join up and want to stand for selection. You might find it hard to include diversity groups in the Shortlists because the low percentage of say, trans people, in the party overall would mean you couldn’t actually find anyone to stand. Whereas there are plenty of women of all sorts of backgrounds who are not being selected because of sexism in the party. And some of those may well be trans, BAME, disabled, carers etc. But don’t expect many to be working class because the Party is overwhelmingly middle-class. I think it’s hard to do what you want because even though we have a disabled female President who, for all we know, may also tick some of the other diversity boxes, many (men) on here are not happy because she went to Oxbridge etc and she is therefore, to use your word ” privileged” . As though that negates all the other diversity issues she brings to the table. Sheesh!
Looking at the selections in held and recently held seats before the last election, the only BME name I see is Layla Moran who was fighting a seat lost in 2010. As far as I can tell from the names none of the new candidates selected to fight held seats were BME, though just over half were women.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cC0HUI3JYkhntnrYxcdt3yia8uij7eP_BdSoCp8rqqE/edit?usp=sharing
Obviously the gender balanced selections did us no good as none of the new candidates won their seats. But AWS does seem to be fixing the one single thing that aint broke.
Joe Otten that’s a fair point and I have argued on here that the wrong fight is being fought, though for reasons other than Eddie’s. But on your observation about BAME women, are you suggesting having All black Shortlists rather than AWS? isn’t the real problem that there are very few BAME members in the Party overall and even fewer BAME who want to stand as a candidate. I don’t know if the party keeps stats on the ethnicity of its members but it might throw up interesting facts to illuminate the debate.
1. What were the voting figures?
2. What were the daily attendance figures?
Joe -the BME figures were better than that as Brent and Somerton and Frome both initially selected BME candidates (one male and one female). Both however withdrew, one late on, and had to be replaced. There was also a very good BME candidate in one of the London seats we had come within a hairs breadth of winning in 2010.
But yes you are absolutely correct that AWS is seeking to solve a selection problem that simply does not exist. One of the Conference Reports shows that 27% of Approved candidates were female. Despite that 40% of the candidates selected for our Target Seats (and 55% where MP’s were standing down) in 2015 were female. Far from discriminating against female candidates we were doing the opposite without any need for illiberal, divisive and counter productive AWS measures.
Sad to see that after writing this article, there has been no response from the author on the points made in response to it. Is one side of this argument simply unwilling to respond to all reason from those who have massive concerns about it?
David – It looks like no men and no women elected delivers equality for some.
It actually delivers equality for nobody at all.