Sarah Champion’s attitude to misogyny?

Too good to miss! Republished from a comment:

The reality is she doesn’t comment upon the misogyny within Rotherham Labour Party, so I don’t see any pheasants emerging.

I can’t decide whether she is naive, not very bright or brighter & more cynical than we think; that is prepared to take advantage of the biraderi networks & old Labour vote machine.
At the moment her description of mysoginist is limited to their being:

1. Tory
2. white
3. Users of hand gestures to demean female mammary and sexual organs.

She appears oblivious to the misogyny that occurs at almost every meeting of the LP, misogyny that is implicit in the behaviour of her supporters.
So question for Ms Champion.

“Where do you stand on the selection of a male trade unionist as the LP 2014 Council candidate for Wath, when the LP rule book and guidance states that the short list for candidates should have been women only?”

“Where do you stand on the fact as DLP Secretary Darren Hughes, who has a responsibility for ensuring that selection complies with the rules , must have known that the Wath selection process was outside of party rules on women only short lists?”

Why must he know? Because he had misruled once before on precisely the same matter and had to be corrected by Regional LP. In Wath he repeated the same incorrect guidance that by then he knew was wrong. There is evidence, but nobody in the LP, including Ms Champions want to look.

Actually I can guess what Ms Champions response will be…”not my problem,” but come 2015 it will be.

Wil Ewart

5 thoughts on “Sarah Champion’s attitude to misogyny?

  1. Apologies, correct it is Swinton. Yes JH constituency, however Dazza is both the DLP secretary who let the decision at Swinton go without challenge and now Sec for Ms Champions CLP. Hence the link.

    Plus of course there are strong cross border links between personalities and Ms Champion has been made aware of the abuse through people in her constituency. So given her passion on what we agree is a very important issue, is she bringing it to the attention of JH or the Regional LP?


  2. I can’t claim to be an authority on Labour Party rules but my understanding is that in this case there was a challenge to a sitting councillor, which does not necessitate an all-woman short list. Apologies if I’ve got this wrong.


  3. The Ward decided that the sitting Councillor should not be automatically reselected (as was within their right) and that a new selection process should take place

    Once the desion was made to have a re selection process the other candidates should have been women.

    Rule books can probably never allow for every eventuality, however there are rules and guidance that are easy to apply and they confirm the view about women only.

    What you are repeating is the view you will get from Swinton Ward & Dazza; their fig leaf of an excuse.

    However Regional LP were not approached for final deliberation as they should have ben if there was any doubt,never mind in circumstances where the principles of all women short lists were ignored.



Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.