Most women in top MEP slots received fewer votes than male rivals

CCHQ has just published the number of points that each MEP candidate was awarded in last week's elections.  It reveals that few women would have been awarded top slots if the preferential system had not been in place:

In London Marina Yannakoudis was awarded the highest place for non-incumbents although three men - JP Floru, Warwick Lightfoot and Bob Seely - all won more support from the grassroots.

In the South East Therese Coffey and Sarah Richardson beat all men in the voting.

In the Eastern region Vicky Ford was awarded the highest place for non-incumbents even though John Flack won more support from members.

In the East Midlands Emma McClarkin was awarded second place even though Rupert Matthews received a better vote from members.

In the West Midlands Anthea McIntyre finished ahead of all men in terms of grassroots support.

In Yorkshire and the Humber Fleur Butler was ranked ahead of Matthew Bean and Nick Burrows although they both received more support from the grassroots.

In the North East Barbara Musgrave was awarded second place although Richard Bell enjoyed more support.

In the North West Jacqueline Foster and Fiona Bruce won more support than any of the non-incumbent men in the selection.  Fiona Bruce has apparently dropped out after very narrowly finishing behind Jacqueline Foster.

In the South West Julie Girling received slightly less support than Ashley Fox but was ranked above him.

In Wales Dr Kay Swinburne was awarded top place although Evan Price won more support from the grassroots.

In Scotland Belinda Don and Helen Gardiner both beat all men in the voting.

IN CONCLUSION: Supporters of the preferential ranking for women will say that these results vindicate the system.  Without it they say far fewer women would be in positions where they could be elected as MEPs. Critics will say that candidates less respected by the grassroots have prospered and will wonder if this system has really produced the candidates best qualified to be MEPs.

We do not yet know if CCHQ will publish turnout and spoilt ballots data.

Comments

[John North]

'Critics will say that candidates less respected by the grassroots have prospered and will wonder if this system has really produced the candidates best qualified to be MEPs'

Spot on Conservativehome, in Wales we have this exact problem, the top of the list has no grass roots support as she doesn't even know any of us, and we haven't even heard of her before - except for when she stood against Jonathan Evans MEP in Cardiff North.

The papers in Wales describe her as 'an unknown' - a great start to becoming an MEP.

Evan does know more people I think, but still it has led to a rather strange result for us and rather confused.

[Jennifer Wells]

Mugabe would be proud of this!

In what other elections can you get more votes and come second!?!

This is a disgrace to the Conservative Party.

[Sara P]

I might try and run against Mugabe next time as I think I would stand more chance of election victory, its clear you obviously need to be in favour with CCHQ or at least Mr Maples and then the rest is all sorted for you.

A clear fix up job.

[Richard]

This news will make sad reading for those good candidates who despite having the support of their local members, may now not become MEPs. It should also make gloomy reading for those women as most of them now know that they are only so high up in the rankings because of their gender!

What ever happened to people being selected on the basis of their ability to do a job?

[Sean Fear]

Well the system doesn't reflect at all well on the Conservative Party. Also note that the system worked unfairly against Therese Coffey (who would have finished third) and Sarah Richardson (who would have finished fifth) with an open selection.

With a fair selection, Vicky Ford, Julie Girling, and Emma McClarkin would all have secured positions that gave them a reasonable chance of getting elected, as would Sarah Richardson. There was thus never any need for this mix of nepotism and political correctness when it came to choosing European candidates.

The turnout was very poor, I see.

[Sean Fear]

"It should also make gloomy reading for those women as most of them now know that they are only so high up in the rankings because of their gender!"

And gloomy reading for the two women in South East Region who deserved to be ranked third and fifth.

[Charlie Wood-Smith]

This does nothing to help women in poltitcs and only damages us and our equality agenda in the long run.

It's made even more ridiculous when we already have high quality women winning out regardless of this procedure.

[Mastiff]

It is probably worth remembering WHY this started...because the sitting MEPs were not subjected to the full ballot - only to being ranked amongst themselves, not allowing new candidates (men and women) to break into their ranks.

I know Selection Colleges had the opportunity to move MEPs from the protected list to the open list but none of our MEPs are incapable of getting about 50 or 60 representatives to show up and vote them back in.

[Evan Price]

The period of purdah is now over and people in Wales can expect all of the candidates to start campaigning this week for the local elections. We are all committed to working for the Conservative cause in Wales and I know that Kay will work as hard as the rest of us (if not harder).

When I entered this competition, I knew the rules; I accepted them. To some extent, I say this to the critics - if I am happy with it, why shouldn't you be? Rules are imperfect, but they are in place ... and those that entered the race understood the rules before entering it.

I am happy with the result - and it appears to me that as the Number 2, to some extent my role is to campaign strongly with Conservatives in Wales to ensure that we get the best possible turnout to see if we can outpoll Labour and steal as many votes (back?) from UKIP as possible.

Work with me and we can achieve positive results - fail to campaign and vote and we cannot.

If anyone wants to talk to me, email me via my website at www.evanprice.co.uk or through my blog ...

[James]

All good points, although the worst thing is that it was so unnecessary and the system itself distorted the results.

If not for the toplisting of restanding MEPs (all men - how about that for positive action for female representation?) there would probably be more women in winnable slots. Therese Coffey would, I am quite sure, have beaten at least one if not more of the current SE MEPs. Sarah Richardson may also have done. Jackie Foster and Fiona Bruce would probably both have been in the top 3 in the NW - ie both standing a chance of being elected. I would have bet that both would have beaten Sajj Karim. Anthea McIntyre would probably have been ranked higher as well.

Also, on another thread there were reports of people in London automatically giving the 2 female candidates their 5th and 6th preferences knowing that one would be placed at the top anyway - which results in Marina being beaten by 3 men. I've also heard of people putting their favourite female candidate diurectly below their favourite male candidate to best his chances of getting the space below her (I hope that makes sense - they were effedtively trying to do down the other men).

Similarly, I actually question how many more female MEPs this has resulted in than a free vote (and that's putting aside the distorting effect of the system noted above). Julie Girling and Emma McClarkin would have been third apparently - so still probably in line for seats. Vicky Ford would have been fourth, so would have moved from the 'definitely in' to the 'fighting chance' column. Fleur Butler and Barbara Musgrave probably aren't going to be elected anyway.

I suspect that there's a net gain of one woman by using this system which was at least cancelled out by toplisting the MEPs (which was really illogical as they are hostile to Cameron!).

Such a waste of time. Still, sincere congratulations to Therese and Andrea who are very talented politicians.

[scottish tory activist]

Doesn't the result in Scotland- where 2 excellent female candidates beat all the men standing easily- show that we don't need this 'zipping' system?

[David Strauss]

The male candidates who finished higher than their female counterparts have been politically disenfranchised solely because of their gender, not their ability to represent their constituents.

This is sexual discrimination.

How must they feel, and how must their mothers, wives/girlfriends and daughters feel that this has happened to advance the cause of women?

It is also only the tip of the iceberg because this type of thing has been happening in Parliamentary selections, it's just the results have never been known.

[John D]

I have to commend Evan Price for his comments above.
The rules are imperfect, but we mustn't linger, bitterly, on them.
The rules should have been different... they should be different for the next time candidates are chosen for a Euroopean Parliament election (for 2014), but to spend a lot of time and energy arguing about them is not going to help us this May, or indeed next May when the European elections take place.

[Chad Noble]

"I say this to the critics - if I am happy with it, why shouldn't you be?"

So the Tory Party has protected euphiles from deselection and then run a grass-roots vote, just to ignore the result and you are *seriously* asking why people might not be happy Evan?

Please, let no Tory even again describe the party as 'eurosceptic' or 'democratic' as this clearly shows the leadership are willing to rig any vote to match their preferred result.

[Sally]

David Strauss you make a fair point

In Wales there is a woman who has sued against sexual discrimination but is quite happy to accept her position as the top of a list which has discriminated against a man.

Principled, I think not!

[Mary Hinge]

Sean wrote: "And gloomy reading for the two women in South East Region who deserved to be ranked third and fifth."

Sean, normally you speak a lot of sense but you have really missed the point here.

You can't tell that from the rankings as no-one was asked to compare sitting MEPs with the others. EG in South East region I might have preferred all six of the "outsiders" but still had to give the rankings 1-2-3-4 to the sitting MEPs. Equally if I didn't like any of the "outsiders" I still had to rank them 1-2-3-4-5-6.

The points in each ballot are not comparable with each other as I have given two candidates 1 point, two 2 points, two 3 points and two 4 points.

[Man in a Shed]

Never received my vote. I made the mistake of joining the party through the internet - now the only thing that works in the direct debit.

[Conand]

ConservativeHome doesn't publish the full results of it's monthly polls.
Pot/Kettle/Black.

Personally I'm against positive discrimination.
However I do recognize the arguments for having more MEPs who are women.
I'm quite impressed with CCHQ's 'shock tactics' and pleased that it might have ticked off the more reactionary Conservative membership.
I appeal to all the women candidates chosen to amply demonstrate they deserve their place both on the campaign trail and hopefully as MEPs. I am sure that they will.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I am very pleased (wait a minute!), the all my fellow female on this thread feel the same way as I do! I actually find it somewhat insulting! I spent quite a time carefully reading the booklet sent round to us, under the impression that the order in which I placed the candidates, actually mattered, I studied their answers on this website, and noted the ones that didn't. Now I feel the whole exercise was a bit of a tease.

I earnestly hope we will have got over this male/female discrimination thing WELL BEFORE the next election, because I don't think the voters would react well to it at all!

[John Broughton]

Evan

You may remember chatting after the Clwyd South selection. I accept what you say but . . . .

The system simply was not democratic and your acceptance of it does not validate it. None of us who were asked to vote were able to ask a question of you or the others. For all I know Kay may be a raving europhile and someone that I simply could not work for.

The platitudes in the leaflet that accompanied the ballot paper were just that - certainly not a basis upon which to make a decision.

Why should a woman top the list? Please explain. It would be just as valid to decide that any specified ethnicity should top the list. One could substitute almost any distinguishing characteristic for ethnicity and it would be just as valid as "woman."

For many of us it would have been equally relevant to specify someone resident in north Wales.

I hope you make it it would be absolutely splendid for both the party and you particularly when one considers the likely "winners" from Plaid and Labour; one sensible voice would be welcome.

[IRJMilne]

Congratulations to Therese Coffey, Sarah Richardson, Jacqueline Foster, and Fiona Bruce, who did well on their own merits.

[John D]

"Please, let no Tory even again describe the party as 'eurosceptic' or 'democratic'"

I really despair sometimes... but not over the leadership (hint, hint).
I hereby describe the Tory Party as a eurosceptic and democratic... childish I know.

[HF]

One of the groups that seem to have escaped criticism over this debacle are the Association Chairmen who nodded through the MEPs and this process.

I would like to read from Sean Fear what exactly our Chairmen did as representatives of the members?

[Evan Price]

Sally wrote, "In Wales there is a woman who has sued against sexual discrimination but is quite happy to accept her position as the top of a list which has discriminated against a man."

I know that Kay and the others in the Wales Ballott were very concerned about the bias in the system and they were not in favour of it and said so. So to criticise Kay on this basis is, in my view, unfair ... and for the reasons that I have expressed it won't assist the conservative or Conservative cause in Wales!

"The male candidates who finished higher than their female counterparts have been politically disenfranchised solely because of their gender, not their ability to represent their constituents.

This is sexual discrimination."

It may be; but it is not, in my view unlawful sexual discrimination.

John Boughton wrote, "You may remember chatting after the Clwyd South selection."

John, I do remember the meeting and some of our chat, thank you.

"Why should a woman top the list? Please explain. It would be just as valid to decide that any specified ethnicity should top the list. One could substitute almost any distinguishing characteristic for ethnicity and it would be just as valid as "woman."

For many of us it would have been equally relevant to specify someone resident in north Wales"

The Party's difficulty after the 2004 election and after the current round of retirements and resignations meant that unless women were at the top of the lists, there would be no female Conservative MEPs at all ... one down from 2004. The Party in its wisdom chose a set of rules that would enable sitting MEPs to gain from incumbency but would also enable female candidates to come to the fore ... these rules are imperfect; but as I have already explained, I understood that when I threw my hat into the ring. That is my understanding of why the rules were made ...

I know that the three ladies who stood in the ballott were unhappy with the rules; and they said so.

I will telephone Vince Morris this week and see what we can do to help in the local elections in North Wales this month ... if you have any ideas for things that I can do, please contact me through my website or blog and I will see what I can do to help.

[alex]

The rules were misguided, in my view, but they were clear. It was also clear that they were to be for this election only. What is not clear is how the knowledge of the rules may have affected the voting (in other words people voting for men above women just because a) they didn't like the rules or b) they knew the top woman was going to get the top slot and they therefore had to put them a long way below a favoured male to give their man the best chance of the next slot.

I dont think this was CCOs finest hour but the rigging was at least transparent and to be honest I dont think it is much if any less democratic than the process we used last time, which was a complete farce

[Chris Palmer]

'One of the groups that seem to have escaped criticism over this debacle are the Association Chairmen who nodded through the MEPs and this process.' - HF

Good point, I had forgotten about that.

[Chris Palmer]

'I dont think this was CCOs finest hour but the rigging was at least transparent and to be honest I dont think it is much if any less democratic than the process we used last time, which was a complete farce.' - Alex

We have heard it all now! Using your example, Alex, if Robert Mugabe were to rig the Zimbabwean elections in a more 'transparent' way, would that make it any better? Of course not!

Granted the previous selection rules were not perfect (are selection systems?) but they were far better than this ruse which has protected incumbency and fiddled the rankings of candidates because they happened to be of one gender rather than another.

[Sam R]

Four questions for Dave and the others in CCHQ who thought up the MEP selection wheeze:
1/ Why did you feel it necessary to protect sitting MEPs from serious grass-roots scrutiny?
2/ Why have you chosen to humiliate all female candidates by guaranteeing them positions in the lists irrespective of membership voting preferences?
3/ If you had a mind to restrict the choice of the electorate, why did you not have greater input into matching candidates with their electorate, e.g., why nobody from an agricultural or rural community in a rural constituency?
4/ When will you put your hands up, say you have made a complete cock-up and left the party open to allegations of gerrymandering and un-democratic practices, and offer sincere apologies to the party membership?
On second thoughts, perhaps the whole process was a subtle way of saying: "Such a pathetic institution as the Euro-parliament merits such a farcical selection process!"

[Chad Noble]

Evan,

for the sake of the party's gender balance, and to give women a fighting chance, would you be prepared to make a personal sacrifice and offer your slot to a woman?

Nothing could more clearly display your genuine belief in this discrimination.

You could thank everyone for their votes, but announce that you plan to stand aside for the next placed female as bringing balance to the party is far more important that one man's career aims.

[Evan Price]

"For the sake of the party's gender balance, and to give women a fighting chance, would you be prepared to make a personal sacrifice and offer your slot to a woman?

Nothing could more clearly display your genuine belief in this discrimination."

I haven't said that I 'believe' in the system; I have merely set out my understanding of the explanation for it and said that I accepted the system when joining the race to be elected and so accepted that whatever the result, the top slot available to me would be the second slot in Wales. I am happy with the result and am looking forward to the campaign ahead.

I understand the reasons for the system; I understand that it was for the single ballott and I hope that it won't be used again as it has created unease amnongst candidates, party members and activists alike.

What we need to do now is move on and concentrate on the local elections in May and then the European elections next year.

[Geraint]

'Evan,

for the sake of the party's gender balance, and to give women a fighting chance, would you be prepared to make a personal sacrifice and offer your slot to a woman?

Nothing could more clearly display your genuine belief in this discrimination.

You could thank everyone for their votes, but announce that you plan to stand aside for the next placed female as bringing balance to the party is far more important that one man's career aims'

Chad Noble thats a fair comment, Evan if you really do believe in this system why not be the only principled person and make a stand, I am sure that you would get more respect this way, than trying to defend a corrupt system which IS discriminatory to men!

[chad noble]

but how does your selection help to get more women mep's? If you genuinely think discrimination is valid for this vote alone to boost women candidates then you would step aside and stand again next time.

[Tom]

Evan come on do the noble thing and practice what you preach, because as a young man with zero chance or ever being elected in the party because of these stupid rules, I think the selection stinks!

Or are you not in favour of it enough to stick to what you believe in so greatly?

[Old Hack]

This business about gender shades other concerns. In Devon & Cornwall, for instance, it is lamented that there is no candidate with a credible connection to either county other than Giles Chichester who lives in Devon.

Similarly, in an area with a strong rural interest there is no identifiable and authentic voice to speak for farmers as Neil Parish does.

All this leaves a pretty sour taste in the mouths of many members who are expected to heave out an extra 600 Conservative votes per constituency to ensure we hang onto to 3 seats.

Will it happen? Maybe, but the start of the process has not been our finest hour. People in the South West are not so enamoured of the Westminster modernisers that they may not be swayed by other siren voices, as happened last time when UKIP did well.

[Richard]

Firstly, congratulations to Therese Coffey, Sarah Richardson, Anthea McIntyre, Jacqueline Foster, Fiona Bruse, Belinda Don and Helen Gardiner. You have the support of your local members and hold your positions on merit.

Maria Yannakoudis, Vicky Ford, Emma McClarkin, Fleur Butler, Barbara Musgrave, Julia Girling and Dr Kay Swinburne. If any of you get elected to the European Parliament it will be without the full support of your local members and purely because you are female!

The very fact that seven women got more votes than their male colleagues just shows why we did not need to rig the vote! Back in 1999 we managed to have three women elected under the old system and in 2004 a women was selected as number one slot in London.

However, non of this should matter, what we want is a talented and dedicated group of MEPs, be they all male, all women, all black or all lesbian! I could not care less about the gender of my MEPs as long as they do a good job!

[John Broughton]

Evan, thanks for the offer of help in north Wales we will need it but there are some great prizes to be won here not least seeing Labour finally lose control of Flintshire.

I must take issue with:-

"it is not, in my view unlawful sexual discrimination."

It may well be legal (shame no one challenged the practice) but it is morally indefensible.

If it is legal then the law should be changed to cover all discrimination.

This is particularly relevant here as at least one local authority discriminates in its employment practices by insisting that one must be a Welsh speaker to obtain employment (OK there have been one or two exceptions under duress).

The law allows some very serious and worrying discrimination and should be changed so that we can never again operate such discriminatory practices but select on the basis of merit alone.

It should be a given that sitting MEPs have to submit themselves to selection

[IRJMilne]

"...it is not, in my view unlawful sexual discrimination."

Why not?

[Evan Price]

Chad and Tom

Thank you for the invitation ... As I have already said, I haven't said that I 'believe' in this set of rules. What I have done is to set out my understanding of the reasons for it.

These were the rules I agreed to play by when entering the race. I am happy with the result ...

Now we have this period over; let's stop bickering about this and get on with the real task ahead of us - doing well in the local elections in May and winning ever more MEPs next June!

[abctory]

From the number of vaild votes indicated in the Party press release you can guess that turnout was very low. Even allowing for a higher number than expected of so called spolit papers it is still low:-

You can glean figures for numbers of members from each local party accounts so for instance in the West Mids, at the 2005 leadership election there were approx 18,000 members in the region so with 3330 valid papers then that's approx 18% turnout !

[Tom]

But you have said that the other women on this list were opposed to the rules and you are 'understanding' of them?

How bizzare, perhaps the women on your list are more principled that you.

Some of us though in the constituencies feel let down, and I think you will find a lot of grassroots supporters are very negative about the whole process.

By ignoring this and 'getting on with the task ahead of us' you are sure to alienate more of your vote who feel disinfranchised with the whole party and EU selection process.

As I said before why not save some credibility for the party and make a stand as a man and try and actually get more women elected?

If not then you should be raising the question, why as the candidate with the most votes are you so happy just to roll over and let someone else take what should be yours, the number one slot?

To be a good politician you need to follow the party, but to be a great politician you need conviction.

Why not start with actually trying to represent the views of the membership who are NOT happy with this process - after all isn't that what you are supposed to do?

[Chad Noble]

Evan,

You are missing the point. This is not about the rules but about the party's aim which is clearly to get more women selected.

By putting your self-interest above this party aim, you have denied a woman a chance to become an MEP.

Why should your ambition come above the party's aim to get more women elected? For once, can you not put the party above yourself and stand aside for a women candidate?

Think about it. You have done nothing to deserve being selected over the next best woman, according to party logic, so why not do the decent thing and stop blocking slots from women candidates?

[Richard]

In the East Midlands for example we have a very good candidate in Rupert Matthews, just the sort of person we should be sending to Brussels. Rupert has had a very successful life outside of politics, has a family and seems to me to be a well rounded individual. It is also clear from the results that members in the East Midlands also thought the same as they selected him top more than any other candidate. Rupert, however may be denied a place in the European Parliament as a weaker candidate has beaten him to second place simply because of her gender.

When talent and the wishes of the electorate are ignored it is a very sad day!

[Bethan]

I have to agree with Chad, Evan why not step aside and fulfil the party objective? After all isn't the whole point to get more women elected?

I am sure John Maples MP will fix you another seat if you make the sacrifice for his dream.

[Evan Price]

"Why not start with actually trying to represent the views of the membership who are NOT happy with this process - after all isn't that what you are supposed to do?"

In the appropriate place, this is precisely what I am doing and will do.

""it is not, in my view unlawful sexual discrimination."

It may well be legal (shame no one challenged the practice) but it is morally indefensible.

If it is legal then the law should be changed to cover all discrimination.

This is particularly relevant here as at least one local authority discriminates in its employment practices by insisting that one must be a Welsh speaker to obtain employment (OK there have been one or two exceptions under duress).

The law allows some very serious and worrying discrimination and should be changed so that we can never again operate such discriminatory practices but select on the basis of merit alone.

It should be a given that sitting MEPs have to submit themselves to selection"

The law is limited in many ways in all sorts of areas. Part of the difficulty with regulation, particularly regulation affecting employment (as opposed to putting yourself for political office) is that the more onerous the regulation, the greater the non-employment costs are.

The 'deal' regarding the Welsh language is one that does concern me greatly. What business, considering the relative merits of Flintshire or Cheshire, will not consider the additional burdens that will arise if the Welsh Assembly decide to impose their proposals regarding the Welsh language for private business?

There are also very real concerns about the abuse of the planning system by Ceredigion Council - where in some cases it appears that other considerations appear to be ignored if the applicant is Welsh Speaking.

Chad, Bethan and others: I accept the teasing ...

[Top of the shot]

Of course no one in London is saying that if you are a member of either kensington and Chelsea (with Fulham) or Westminster that you stand a better chance of getting elected. Why because K&C with Fulham have 4000 members and Westminster has 3000. Having such a large proportion of the overall of the total membership for London explains why their members seem to poll the highest votes.

In other words, what ever system is adopted someone somewhere will not be happy.

Some of us remember at the last Euro selection, when a London MEP with the aid of someone who is now an MP, organised five coaches to bus in the votes and yes sure enough it worked, as he managed to go one more up the ranking ladder.

[Rover]

This undemocratic behaviour has been going on for years and years in the party. In the election for leader when William Hague and Ken Clarke stood, my association conducted a poll and the result was for Clarke. I counted the ballot papers some time later when a different team were elected and I found them where I suspect they shouldn't have been. It was reported to CCHQ at the time of the ballot that Hague had won narrowly. The vote was rigged by the local officials because of strong links to a man with strong links to Hague. I was 100% behind Hague and 100% against Clarke. That did not matter. The rigging was WRONG. What happened? I and my mates were crushed by the local Tory mafia one of them even quoting Stalin to me: "My father always used to say it's not who votes but who counts the votes that matters. Do you want Clarke leading us further into Europe?" I said I would rather have Clarke democratically elected than Hage elected by cheating. They laughed at me. Contributors to this site should not blame Cameron and Maples for it all, it's endemic in the party and in politics. For all I know Cameron and Maples may be better than what's gone before! A long time ago I commented here that Tim Montgomerie and this site had done more for democracy in the party than any other single factor over the recent past. That get's truer by the day and long may it last.

[Chad Noble]

"Chad, Bethan and others: I accept the teasing ... "

LOL!

No Evan, you just shamelessly accepted a system that both discriminates against men and women (as it fails to deliver the 50% representative share even with result-fixing) as it fits your own overriding desire to get on the gravy train.

Of course you are principled and want to change the selection system, but not until you have been safely elected of course...

[Evan Price]

Until I have some influence, I cannot influence ...

And if you think the 'gravy train' is my reason for standing then you know me not!

And second place in Wales means that we need to outpoll Labour for me to be elected ...

[John]

It doesn't matter how many women the Tories put up, they won't be able to compete with UKIP who have secured the country's top A list celebrity - 1980s daytime television cook Mrs Rustie Lee. Beat that.

[converted]

Wow Rusty Lee! That is a reason to vote UKIP, very impressive.