I'm in the process of completing a diversity survey of the Liberal Democrats approved candidates, I trust that by being asked to complete this I have been retained (although I have yet to have official confirmation of my post election review).
My first gripe was the first question, where it asked for DOB in the format mm/dd/yyyy when like me you have a repeating number (nine) you have rattled this off from an early age. To have to think when answering a UK based survey before you start, to transpose into American format is not a good first impression and people born in the first 12 days of a month may not have realised their error.
However, I see there are some areas that allow a true measure of diversity but when it came to ethnic background I hit a stumbling block as it failed to allow me to fill in my legislated right to identify as I want. I could choose White/British or White/Irish, but unlike what the Belfast Act allows I cannot identify as both White/British and White/Irish. So I shall have to fill in with other. Update Thank you Jennie Rigg who pointed out the other box, I have met my legislative right to identify as both.
The last section is work that you do and it assumes that all candidates are actually in work. It does not allow for candidates to be unemployed, students, retired, or indeed stay at home parents/ grandparents.
I know for ethnic background it may only affect me. But the working background homogenises all our approved candidates as being in work, which isn't necessarily so.
Update Apparently it you answer "No" to do you have a Religious belief the survey ends. While this would not be a problem with the DUP and potentially the Conservative it has repercussions for the Liberal Democrats with a high number of non-religious folks in our ranks.
Showing posts with label diversity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diversity. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 April 2016
Monday, 13 January 2014
Stonewall try and fail to be inclusive
Today Stonewall launch their campaign to tackle homophobia in work. There are four poster designs, though by looking at their website you would think that there are only three. Two are all male with the headline "One is Gay". There is a lesbian version but this morning it took many LGBT activists some time to locate it.
There is one woman that Stonewall are happy to promote on their posters about this campaign. She is a police officer who appears with a male colleague under the title "One is bisexual". So the women may actually be the straight one on that poster, after all we are assuming that the other one is, unless she is a lesbian and her male colleague is the bisexual.
However, what many campaigners including myself picked up on the bisexual poster is that apart from the title you would not know that Britain's "self-proclaimed" leader in the LGB rights
The text underneath all four designs is the same.
They are also taking credit for same-sex marriage, which they were opposed to in 2010 even as the Liberal Democrats passed as Federal Policy in support of it.
There are many harping away about how fantastic this campaign is. Sadly it is more fan'as'ic and fails from its outset to be a diversity inclusive at it appears on a quick scan of the posters.
While we do need to end homophobic bullying, and biphobic, we also need to address transphobic. The Stonewall riots saw the transexuals stand alongside the Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals in countering the police brutality. But Stonewall UK (itself a misnomer due its lack of action on Northern Ireland) fail to live up to the name it bears by constantly getting the full range of those who made at stand at the Stonewall Inn in New York's Greenwich Village.
Looks like those of us who get the full spectrum of sexuality and identity will once again had to pick up the pieces that the UK most high profile organisation that many few as standing for LGBT rights fails to pick up and run with.
There is one woman that Stonewall are happy to promote on their posters about this campaign. She is a police officer who appears with a male colleague under the title "One is bisexual". So the women may actually be the straight one on that poster, after all we are assuming that the other one is, unless she is a lesbian and her male colleague is the bisexual.
However, what many campaigners including myself picked up on the bisexual poster is that apart from the title you would not know that Britain's "self-proclaimed" leader in the LGB rights
The text underneath all four designs is the same.
At Stonewall we've campaigned for 25 years for equality. We've had major successes with legaslising same-sex marriage, repealing section 28 and lifting the ban on gay people serving in the military. But 99% of young gay people still regularly hear homophobic language in school, 100 homophobic hate crimes are reported to the police every week and 2.4 million people have witnessed homophobic bullying at work in the past 5 years.
Lots done. Lots to do.Yes even when Stonewall try and be inclusive in their poster campaign they fail within the text. They focus only on the G, hide away the L, fail to recognise the different problems faced by the B, and as for the T as usual with Stonewall they don't get a look in.
They are also taking credit for same-sex marriage, which they were opposed to in 2010 even as the Liberal Democrats passed as Federal Policy in support of it.
There are many harping away about how fantastic this campaign is. Sadly it is more fan'as'ic and fails from its outset to be a diversity inclusive at it appears on a quick scan of the posters.
While we do need to end homophobic bullying, and biphobic, we also need to address transphobic. The Stonewall riots saw the transexuals stand alongside the Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals in countering the police brutality. But Stonewall UK (itself a misnomer due its lack of action on Northern Ireland) fail to live up to the name it bears by constantly getting the full range of those who made at stand at the Stonewall Inn in New York's Greenwich Village.
Looks like those of us who get the full spectrum of sexuality and identity will once again had to pick up the pieces that the UK most high profile organisation that many few as standing for LGBT rights fails to pick up and run with.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Question For Iain Dale "Why Aren't the Tories Doing More?"
I see that Iain Dale is talking about the Conservatives doing stuff about ethnicity balance since the year nought AD (After David). He says that the Conservatives have selected five Black and Ethnic Minority (BME) Candidates in safe seats, and that they will have at least 11 BME Tory MPs or as many as 16.
He asks what are the Lib Dems doing about it? Well in month 1 AD I posted this about our Reflecting Britain Campaign. So whoops on point one we've been working at it since the years BC (Before Cameron and Clegg).
He also is using raw numbers. Always a bad thing to do with a statistician on the loose. And ignoring as LibCync points out that Operation Black Vote have said that there are 1-3 BME Lib Dems in potentially winnable seats, indeed under the title "The future's bright for Lib Dems".
I trust that Iain Dale is still expecting the Tories to hold the majority to lets take a look 11 BME Tories out of half the House of Commons comes in at 3.41% of the total (16 is 4.95%). Three Lib Dems of our current number 63 is 4.76%. So in real terms we are looking at doing pretty well, indeed either ahead or equal with the Tories on projections.
But that is looking at the figures without checking one other thing the possibility to get candidates into winnable seats. I can imagine the bulk of Lib Dem MPs laughing at the thought of their seat being a safe seat for starters.
However, lets consider the longevity of the current crop. 12 Lib Dems seat (19%) are currently being contested as held for the first time and a further 8 (12.7%) only for the second that is 31% of the current MPs. Indeed 43* of the seats we currently hold (68%) we have only be held since 1997. So many of these seats are not looking for new candidates. The Tories of course are looking for 125 gains and have a substantially higher number of retirements this time around than the Lib Dems (I believe, and will no doubt be corrected that we only have three MPs stepping down).
So actually Iain should really be asking " Why Aren't the Tories Selecting More BME Candidates in Winnable Seats?" theirs is by far a greater opportunity for change if the opinion polls are to be believed.
Read also: Mark Reckons points out to changes in the electoral system. While Sunder Katwala says that the Lib Dems need to start selection non-white candidates in areas where there is isn't a natural ethnic vote. While that would probably be the Labour and indeed Conservative way of parachuting candidates in, the Lib Dems are more likely to grow local candidates to contest local seats; it is after all our local parties that have full and democratic say on the candidate selection.
* It may be more I'm just taking the raw figures without going through the gains and losses in detail.
He asks what are the Lib Dems doing about it? Well in month 1 AD I posted this about our Reflecting Britain Campaign. So whoops on point one we've been working at it since the years BC (Before Cameron and Clegg).
He also is using raw numbers. Always a bad thing to do with a statistician on the loose. And ignoring as LibCync points out that Operation Black Vote have said that there are 1-3 BME Lib Dems in potentially winnable seats, indeed under the title "The future's bright for Lib Dems".
I trust that Iain Dale is still expecting the Tories to hold the majority to lets take a look 11 BME Tories out of half the House of Commons comes in at 3.41% of the total (16 is 4.95%). Three Lib Dems of our current number 63 is 4.76%. So in real terms we are looking at doing pretty well, indeed either ahead or equal with the Tories on projections.
But that is looking at the figures without checking one other thing the possibility to get candidates into winnable seats. I can imagine the bulk of Lib Dem MPs laughing at the thought of their seat being a safe seat for starters.
However, lets consider the longevity of the current crop. 12 Lib Dems seat (19%) are currently being contested as held for the first time and a further 8 (12.7%) only for the second that is 31% of the current MPs. Indeed 43* of the seats we currently hold (68%) we have only be held since 1997. So many of these seats are not looking for new candidates. The Tories of course are looking for 125 gains and have a substantially higher number of retirements this time around than the Lib Dems (I believe, and will no doubt be corrected that we only have three MPs stepping down).
So actually Iain should really be asking " Why Aren't the Tories Selecting More BME Candidates in Winnable Seats?" theirs is by far a greater opportunity for change if the opinion polls are to be believed.
Read also: Mark Reckons points out to changes in the electoral system. While Sunder Katwala says that the Lib Dems need to start selection non-white candidates in areas where there is isn't a natural ethnic vote. While that would probably be the Labour and indeed Conservative way of parachuting candidates in, the Lib Dems are more likely to grow local candidates to contest local seats; it is after all our local parties that have full and democratic say on the candidate selection.
* It may be more I'm just taking the raw figures without going through the gains and losses in detail.
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
HIV Discrimination Shame in Schools
I was led to this shocking report in Sunday's Observer. It led me to wonder are we still living in the dark ages of the 80s over HIV and more to the point why?
The first shocking thing is that schools in Hertfordshire and Lancashire are able to turn away children looking for new schools after it was revealed that they were HIV+. Not only is this shocking but since 2005 under the Disability Discrimination Act it has been illegal to discriminate against anyone because of their HIV status. Also if this is county wide just where are these parents expected to school their children.
In a ideal world there is a limited need to know of a child's medical status and his should only need been known to staff in direct contact with the child and the school nurse. This should not be dissipated further without the parent's consent however reading the incidents that have happened it would sadly be clear why parents would not wish the school to know in the first place.
It is confidential information and has no need to be disclosed to school dinner ladies or other pupils. The fact that one child was told of their previously unknown to them status by a teacher, which led to bullying shows lack of professionalism by the member of staff involved. When there is a chance of an adult having a STI they undergo a private counselling session before taking the test, that session is dealt with by a trained professional in that field. How much more care needs to be taken with a child? Which may well have been why the parents had yet to address the issue with the child. The end result in that child's case bullying and forced to leave the school would indicate one of two things. The child may have been told in the presence of other children and neither the staff, nor pupils once that first error was made were given appropriate guidance on how to deal with the outcome.
What is also shocking is the tenor of the article that teachers themselves are ignorant, indeed fearful through that ignorance, of how HIV is transmitted. In the 1980s we started in ignorance but many of us quickly learnt our facts once these became known from the shrouds of urban myth. In my case the education came swiftly as the result of sharing a house with a Haemophiliac who contracted HIV through bad factor 8. HIV cannot be passed on by spitting, biting, small cuts or grazes, sharing utensils or toilet seats. The risk assessment of any school would reveal that the changes of any possible spread of HIV from an affected pupil or member of staff is so minimal to be be negligible under normal circumstances and normal first aid guidelines would normally be sufficient under those extreme conditions anyway.
That our educators are ignorant of this lead one to wonder just what else our educators are ignorant of in their training, homophobia, race etc are areas that these people need to be taught and trained about to be able to deal with possibilities in the classroom. Are they? And is that training sufficient?
For the sake of the 1500 children in the UK living with HIV, 1000 of whom are under 15 and the 100 new diagnoses in this age group each year we need to provide them with an educational set up that allows them to be who they are without fear of some disclosure that may result in bullying or ignorant fear from others.
The first shocking thing is that schools in Hertfordshire and Lancashire are able to turn away children looking for new schools after it was revealed that they were HIV+. Not only is this shocking but since 2005 under the Disability Discrimination Act it has been illegal to discriminate against anyone because of their HIV status. Also if this is county wide just where are these parents expected to school their children.
In a ideal world there is a limited need to know of a child's medical status and his should only need been known to staff in direct contact with the child and the school nurse. This should not be dissipated further without the parent's consent however reading the incidents that have happened it would sadly be clear why parents would not wish the school to know in the first place.
It is confidential information and has no need to be disclosed to school dinner ladies or other pupils. The fact that one child was told of their previously unknown to them status by a teacher, which led to bullying shows lack of professionalism by the member of staff involved. When there is a chance of an adult having a STI they undergo a private counselling session before taking the test, that session is dealt with by a trained professional in that field. How much more care needs to be taken with a child? Which may well have been why the parents had yet to address the issue with the child. The end result in that child's case bullying and forced to leave the school would indicate one of two things. The child may have been told in the presence of other children and neither the staff, nor pupils once that first error was made were given appropriate guidance on how to deal with the outcome.
What is also shocking is the tenor of the article that teachers themselves are ignorant, indeed fearful through that ignorance, of how HIV is transmitted. In the 1980s we started in ignorance but many of us quickly learnt our facts once these became known from the shrouds of urban myth. In my case the education came swiftly as the result of sharing a house with a Haemophiliac who contracted HIV through bad factor 8. HIV cannot be passed on by spitting, biting, small cuts or grazes, sharing utensils or toilet seats. The risk assessment of any school would reveal that the changes of any possible spread of HIV from an affected pupil or member of staff is so minimal to be be negligible under normal circumstances and normal first aid guidelines would normally be sufficient under those extreme conditions anyway.
That our educators are ignorant of this lead one to wonder just what else our educators are ignorant of in their training, homophobia, race etc are areas that these people need to be taught and trained about to be able to deal with possibilities in the classroom. Are they? And is that training sufficient?
For the sake of the 1500 children in the UK living with HIV, 1000 of whom are under 15 and the 100 new diagnoses in this age group each year we need to provide them with an educational set up that allows them to be who they are without fear of some disclosure that may result in bullying or ignorant fear from others.
Saturday, 7 October 2006
Is Jack Straw a Head Gear Hypocrite?
Now before I start I must say Jack Straw is fully intitled to make a gaffe as much as the next man, we life in a country where there is freedom of speech. However, one of the reasons he gives for asking women to remove their veil is that he thought we lived in a society where watching facial expressions was important for contact between different people. Look over your shoulder on the right Jack, there on the doorstep of Downing Street is an example of a person who has to communicate with people in our society: a policeman. That picture is a graphic example that it is not possible for someone to see the full facial expression of the bobby on the beat the eyes,the window to the soul, can be obscured or in shadow as a result of the helmet.
The counterargument that has been put by some is that the people have the right to observe their own religious observances, without having to conform. However, the picture below is just one example of Jack Straw conforming to fit in with religious leaders. So he is not prepared to offend the believes and practices of others by not conforming to their expectations but he is prepared to cause possible offence by asking others to surrender theirs.
Picture from im.rediff.com
Interestingly in conclusion when he famously visited a arab state on the brink of civil war in his previous job with a female dignatory from a special friend it was Jack who felt his head should be covered while Condi went bareheaded.
Picture hattip to Raw Carrot
Friday, 14 July 2006
A-lististo Selected but Does not Increase Diversity
I have previously condemned the A-listisos contesting Folkestone and Hythe for that their lack of impact to replace Michael Howard during the nomination process. However, the final three were Harriett Baldwin, Damian Collins and Laura Sandys, A-lististos all, sa.
Harriett was PPC for Stockton North in 2005 and is a pensions and investments manager for J P Morgan, Damian was candidate for Northamptonshire North in 2005 and is managing director of an advertising, part of M & C Saatchi and Laura is the Chair of OpenDemocracy and daughter or the late former MP Baron Duncan-Sandys, Churchill's son-in-law.
So did the people from the seat of the former leader take a radical step and ensure a mature woman with a business background should follow in the steps of Michael Howard.
Nope they went for Damian who like Howard they have selected another officer of the Bow Group. Howard was Chairman in 1970 and Collins was Political Oficer in 2003.
So he is white, male, an establishment Conservative and at least nine years less experience than his female competition. Just how experienced does a Tory woman have to be to get selected?
Harriett was PPC for Stockton North in 2005 and is a pensions and investments manager for J P Morgan, Damian was candidate for Northamptonshire North in 2005 and is managing director of an advertising, part of M & C Saatchi and Laura is the Chair of OpenDemocracy and daughter or the late former MP Baron Duncan-Sandys, Churchill's son-in-law.
So did the people from the seat of the former leader take a radical step and ensure a mature woman with a business background should follow in the steps of Michael Howard.
Nope they went for Damian who like Howard they have selected another officer of the Bow Group. Howard was Chairman in 1970 and Collins was Political Oficer in 2003.
So he is white, male, an establishment Conservative and at least nine years less experience than his female competition. Just how experienced does a Tory woman have to be to get selected?
Wednesday, 7 June 2006
Tory Way to Bring Ethnic Diversity and Other Issues
Brian Jenner over at Conservative Home has produced 10 ways to liven up your Conservative Association
Who else but a conservative could use the word exotic in quite a patronising way?Would this include a new Kebab takeaway? That would be ethnic and I'm sure most Tories would learn something. As for cutting edge, well in some inner city High Streets I wouldn't like to comment. Mind you it does show the extent to which Tories really require to diversify ethnically. Especially if they need short talks about ethnic cuisine, I wonder if that would include Haggis, Neeps and Tatties.
As for putting it on the local Tory party website, don't most of these appear around election time and disappear soon afterwards. A bit like Syed's endorsement for that Lobster restaurant during the BBC's recent Apprentice series.
Maybe this was inspired by the recent Idiots Lantern episode of Doctor Who.
Don't mention you're a Conservative let them find out later. How much later? Blocking off some streets I know would really not create much community spirit, more the opposite as you try and be heard over the strain of beeping horns, and that would just be Jeremy Clarkson trying to pump out a lot more CO2.
Wow if the least contentious issue that David Cameron is going to face is banning raffles in the Conservative Party they really must not be looking at filling the policy void that currently exists.
1) SERVE GOOD FOOD
People want to try something new. Keep an eye on your High Street. If an exotic restaurant opens, put your head round the door and introduce yourself. ‘I’m involved with the local Conservative Association, could we do a deal to have a buffet in your fantastic new place? We’ll supply 20 people and give you some local promotion on our website and in our newsletter. You give us one free drink, a free buffet and a short talk about your cuisine.’ You charge your members, you learn something and you’re guaranteed to be in a cutting edge venue
Who else but a conservative could use the word exotic in quite a patronising way?Would this include a new Kebab takeaway? That would be ethnic and I'm sure most Tories would learn something. As for cutting edge, well in some inner city High Streets I wouldn't like to comment. Mind you it does show the extent to which Tories really require to diversify ethnically. Especially if they need short talks about ethnic cuisine, I wonder if that would include Haggis, Neeps and Tatties.
As for putting it on the local Tory party website, don't most of these appear around election time and disappear soon afterwards. A bit like Syed's endorsement for that Lobster restaurant during the BBC's recent Apprentice series.
5) ORGANISE A STREET PARTY
If you are involved in politics it helps to know your neighbours. Create a flyer saying that you’re going to organise a street party in the road/ a back garden/ park to generate some neighbourhood spirit. Ask anyone who wants to help to send you an email. Organise tables and make plans in case of rain. Get everyone to bring their own sandwiches and drinks. Don’t tell them you’re a Conservative. Let them find out later.
Maybe this was inspired by the recent Idiots Lantern episode of Doctor Who.
Don't mention you're a Conservative let them find out later. How much later? Blocking off some streets I know would really not create much community spirit, more the opposite as you try and be heard over the strain of beeping horns, and that would just be Jeremy Clarkson trying to pump out a lot more CO2.
8) CHARGE BUT DON’T MESS ABOUT WITH SMALL CHANGE
Get people to pay up front. Sort out an online credit card payment facility. People are very mean about small amounts of money. Better to charge £15 for an event, than charge £10 and bother people with raffle tickets. Banning raffles from the Conservative Party would be my Clause 4 moment. You can raise more money in the long term by generating goodwill and providing a proper service.
Wow if the least contentious issue that David Cameron is going to face is banning raffles in the Conservative Party they really must not be looking at filling the policy void that currently exists.
Friday, 10 February 2006
If Dunfermline Spells a Canada Moment
I know the next General Election is a long way off but I just loved this post by Dan on Political Betting:
Now that is startlingly like the Canada result of 1992 that almost wiped out their Conservatives.
Although using the Baxter formula a later poster got the result of:
Still very good.
Total fantasy? Probably, but it shows that the glass ceiling is breakable. Now we need some excellent candidates from all walks of British life.
Based on the vote changes in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, here are the results of a General Election:
Liberal Democrat Majority 140
L D 38.24% 393 MPs
Con 30.74% 220 MPs
Lab 19.30% 1 MP
Now that is startlingly like the Canada result of 1992 that almost wiped out their Conservatives.
Although using the Baxter formula a later poster got the result of:
LD … 35.87% … 341
Con … 30.73% … 250
Lab … 19.39% … 21
Still very good.
Total fantasy? Probably, but it shows that the glass ceiling is breakable. Now we need some excellent candidates from all walks of British life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)