AV is not the issue on which Progressives should be Conservative (and why I’m not #Meh about #Mehs)

Over the last few months I’ve had the opportunity to talk across the country and make the case for AV. It’s understandably been an issue on which a lot of people haven’t felt that “bothered”, but that doesn’t mean the outcome is not going to make a difference.

Many have felt aggrieved by the lies and innuendo paraded by the No campaign. I found the first poster of Clegg based on an Obama image one that verged on racist. That may not have been intended – but bad taste has come to dominate their campaign. There must be something deep that the right particularly fear losing – and it can only be power.

Indeed the issue of the cost of AV was rebutted by Lord McNally this week in the Lords who said that the costs of AV would not be significantly higher than First Past the Post. I also remember one event I was speaking at – and being extremely surprised to hear the No speaker argue one way (“Its not enough so just say No”) to supporters of  PR, and then argue the merits of FPTP to others. I had no idea by the end of the meeting as to what the speaker actually believed in.

Less than a week after the Royal Wedding – which was a symbol of how the monarchy is modernising - we all have a chance to make a decision that will be a small step in the modernisation of our politics. A great Progress piece talked about AV as a marriage of principle and practice – and it was right.

Let me be clear. Whilst I support AV, I do not support PR. I believe we weakened accountability of our MEPs by removing the constituency link and I wouldn’t want a system that gave fascist parties seats in Westminster.

But what I do believe is that the public still want our politics to change. As the expenses crisis lingers as a painful memory, people have not lost an interest in politics. The evidence is there that in fact people want to feel closer, more connected and more influential in our political decision making.

Whilst we could have chosen another variant of reform for the Referendum, this is the one we have got and it is a sensible next step for our parliamentary reform. It is not a big complex change as the No campaign make out. In fact it is a system used by political parties – for internal elections. Every Labour party member who voted in the leadership elections last year used AV. The change is a simple one. It simply is a change from putting a X to either putting an X or ranking candidates 1,2,3.

When I was initially thinking about which way to vote on AV, I found myself coming down to a very simple question. If the Tories aren’t supporting it as Cameron’s has clearly stated, ask yourself why. If the BNP are against it, ask yourself why. The reason is that FPTP or PR entrenches the self interest of each of those parties. However the decision on AV should not be about your own party’s particular interest; it should be about a fairer voting system. This is a change that gives away a bit more power and choice to people. That’s why it’s important. That’s why the Tories are putting up a smokescreen. They know it is a system that could make them have to work beyond their comfort zone and natural supporters – and rather than change themselves, they’ll fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.

Secondly, the very act of changing something in our national politics is symbolic of the fact we can change more. A spirit of change could bring other changes in its wake. I’d like to see a lot more be different. Reform to working hours of Parliament. A reduced recess. Job share MPs. Much more is possible, if people believe change can happen. So I believe that this will be the opening to changing our political life more fundamentally, and it’s a side of reform that Progressives should be on. This is not the issue on which Progressives should be conservative.

This referendum, our first in 36 years, isn’t about Nick Clegg or the Coalition.

It’s about the people of Britain. It is a change that matters, and it saddens me that we have so many people across parties – perfectly comfortably about being ‘Meh’ – undecided. Well on the issue of a change that improves voter choice and fairer democratic outcomes that doesn’t bring other problems in it’s wake, I’m not meh, and I won’t be meh about mehs. And if you worry about coalitions under AV – just remind yourself that FPTP produced this coalition – and there’s no reason why it couldn’t happen again.

            If you think it doesn’t really matter what happens, take a quick look into the future. The boundary changes, reduction in seat numbers and issues around registration could result in Labour losing the chance to ever have an outright majority again. AV, as a fairer system that keeps the constituency link could be the Progressive’s best chance of ever holding power after the constitutional reforms (which are likely be biased in favour of Conservative forces) have gone through. With all the different changes underway, the future is never going to be the same as the past. Today’s vote has to be about the future.

A few days ago, I voted YES. And I urge you to do so too.

Seema Malhotra (@SeemaMalhotra1)

 

On the 100th anniversary of Barbara Castle's birth, what would she make of the Tories on Equal Pay transparency and Child Benefit cuts?

100 years ago today, one of the most successful and well known Labour woman politicians - Barbara Castle was born. She was elected to Parliament as MP for Blackburn in 1945, a seat she held before it was taken over by Jack Straw MP, her special adviser. There's a great piece about her life by Radio 4's Anne Perkins here, but just a few thoughts of my own.
Barbara Castle was the "Harriet Harman" of her time, a woman who challenged the male lens through which political discussion and decision making was always done. Her Equal Pay Act, the struggle for which is being brought to a new generation through the outstanding film "Made in Dagenham", was ground-breaking in its challenge both to politicians and business on the accepted way of doing things. And like the Minimum Wage, despite the mountain of opposition, it quickly became accepted as a long overdue measure of fairness in our economic life.
The Equal Pay Act was one of the last bills to go through Parliament in 1970 before Labour lost power - an uncanny parallel to the passing of Harman's Equality Act just before the election this year, becoming an Act of Parliament on 8th April.
An important milestone 40 years on from the Equal Pay Act, the Equality Act included measures on information about equal pay. Despite progress, there is still a gender pay gap of approx 21% in the UK, worse than the EU average. The gap varies each year, but is in the ball park of 80% of men's pay. This was cleverly marked by Fawcett's Equal Pay Day on 30th October 2009 - when they presented a cheque to the Prime Minister to symbolise the last pay cheque that woman would get for the year.
It isn't rocket science to suggest that tackling the gender pay gap once and for all is going to require gender pay gap information. To put this inequality right you need to know where it is happening. The Equality Act included two new ideas to help make equal pay happen - voluntary pay reporting on differences in men and women’s pay for a company with 250 or more workers, and secondly for public bodies to publish information about equal pay (and how many workers it has who are disabled or people of different races). The Government planned to do this for public bodies with 150 or more workers.
The part of the Act which relates to this is Section 78, which creates a power for Ministers to require employers to publish information relating to the gender pay gap. However the new Tory led Government has already said this is not being commenced from 1st October; instead they are "considering how to approach this clause in the best way for business and others involved."
Theresa May in her Conference speech this week talked about Equal Pay in a list of wrongs and said that the Conservatives plan to "put things right". It is unclear to me how this will be done without pay gap information. A lot of HR data today is computerised - a pay reporting function should hardly be problematic in an age when we expect complex and accurate end of year financial reporting from organisations and solid in-year management accounting to ensure efficiency and productivity.
The real reason for avoiding pay gap information is not red tape - the data already exists and could easily be compiled - the real reason is that as soon as you make something transparent you will see greater demand to do something about it. And the political will to really do something about it is just not there.
But onto another issue. Child Benefit is another of Barbara Castle's legacies - it replaced the Family Allowance in her final years as an MP. She was instrumental in changing a mindset and moving family funds from the wallet to the purse and investing in children. If she were here, she would certainly have made her views known on the regressive steps this Government is now taking, which is much less about economics than it is about politics. The idea that you save a billion by taking money away from children, and "sweeten" the move by giving a billion back to married couples in the form of tax relief is one step short of Dickensian.
This is politics plain and simple - a symbolic step in support of a traditionalist Conservative view of political economy, by attacking a symbol of a social democratic tradition that is in fact one of the symbols of equality for children and families across social classes, as well as a vital contribution to family income and welfare of children. It may be a small contribution to Castle's legacy on the 100th anniversary of her birth is to highlight how the Tories are turning the clock back on progress, but one that I hope will encourage others to look beyond the smokescreen to the reality that lies behind the Tories' words.

starting over

I was as gutted as every other Labour supporter when the general election results came through. I'd worked hard with south thanet labour party for several months, phone canvassing and delivering leaflets. Our candidate lost his seat after 13 years a major disappointment in a key marginal area. Now it's time to regroup and reflect and commit to working hard in the local elections 2011 and thereafter. Labour can do it, we can get back in power. Believe.

starting over

I was as gutted as every other Labour supporter when the general election results came through. I'd worked hard with south thanet labour party for several months, phone canvassing and delivering leaflets. Our candidate lost his seat after 13 years a major disappointment in a key marginal area. Now it's time to regroup and reflect and commit to working hard in the local elections 2011 and thereafter. Labour can do it, we can get back in power. Believe.

How did protecting rape defendants get onto the agenda?

Have you read the latest volume of the government’s coalition agreement? No? Perhaps you should, because there are things buried in it that were not in any manifesto, but that suddenly, and without debate, seem to have become government policy.

The agreement is 36 pages long, but you have to wade through to the 24^th page to find – buried in the Justice section – the sentence which simply says:’ We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants’. 

Sorry? How did that get there, then? It can't have been in the original negotiations, because they seem to have been about manifesto promises, and this wasn't one. Yet there they are - nine little words promising a radical change to the justice system. Other issues are being kicked into the long grass - commissions and inquiries proliferate - but not this one. This one is worded with firm intent.

And if it is implemented, trials for rape will again become the only ones at which the defendant is afforded the same protection as the victim. I say ‘again’ because this is an idea which has been tried before – introduced by the Labour government in 1976, it was abolished by Thatcher’s Conservative government in 1988. 

When we retweeted someone’s comment on this earlier we got a response which said ‘This sort of idiotic rant is why Labour lost - the new law would only make the rights of Men and Women EQUAL !’ (his capitals). 

Equal? What equality is there in being raped, and then being treated as though there was a significant chance of you yourself being the criminal rather than your attacker? Rape is already a notoriously difficult crime to prosecute, and many go unreported because women often lack confidence in the system. 

And they’re right to do so. Only 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction, and there is evidence that we are increasingly drifting back to a situation in which women themselves are blamed if they are assaulted.  

Of course there are a very small number of women who lie about rape –  people lie about all sorts of things - but there are far more women who see their attackers walk free, or who simply never report the assault because they are afraid they will not be believed. To treat all women as though they are potential liars is offensive, and sends them a message to the effect that  if they're raped they're going to need to produce a much higher standard of evidence than is normally required in trials for, say, robbery or murder, and that if the prosecution fails it will be because they will be deemed to have lied.

There’s another point, too. This wasn’t at the top of anyone’s agenda during the election. It was agreed at a Lib Dem conference in 2006, but never got any further. So who got it into the agreement? Why did the Lib Dems (or, indeed, the Tories) think that a four-year old policy decision which has never been put to the electorate should be added to government policy? 

And would they have succeeded if any of the two negotiating teams had been women?

Nick Clegg says that the coalition agreement is based on ‘freedom, fairness and responsibility’. Clearly, women who have been raped are not included. This  measure is a retrograde step which has already been tried and found not to work, and which will penalise victims who are already distressed. It is wrong, and we hope that Harriet Harman (and the new Labour leader) will make a spirited fight against it as part of our confident and effective opposition.

No matter what happens, Brighton will have a woman MP on May 7, says Jill Stevens

No matter which way you look at it, news is being made down here in ‘London on Sea’ and not just because Green hearts are aflutter at the thought that Brighton Pavilion could provide Westminster with its first ever Green MP. 

No, what makes the contest here historic before any votes are cast at all is the fact that for the first time ever we have four major contenders – Labour, Conservative, LiberalDemocrat and Green – and they are all women.This is the first time that all four parties have fielded a woman candidate in the same constituency.

Good Start, But Could Do Better

OK, so we've had the Chancellors' debate. It was interesting, but not a revelation. We discovered that Vince Cable is very good at being Vince Cable, that Alistair Darling is, as well as being a safe pair of hands, not without a sense of humour, and that George Osborne isn't quite up to the mark. No nasty surprises, then. No sudden dawning of the light.

In other words, we got what we expected, and, from the look of the papers this morning and Twitter last night, most people saw what they wanted to see. (Apart from some of the Tories, that is, who seem to think it wasn't fair that Osborne was 'ganged up on', but in their case the words 'heat' and 'kitchen' spring rather predictably to mind.)

Moira's Blog Site Has Shifted - but not her politics :)

I've moved - please find me at moira4labour

The soft power of Cathy Ashton

The soft power of Cathy Ashton

She may have been a surprise candidate and she may be new to the field of foreign policy, but the election of Baroness Catherine Ashton as first EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs is an excellent choice. It is not only a good sign for the EU that one of the two new top jobs went to woman. Cathy, as she prefers to be called, brings along a certain kind of soft power: She is known to be extremely bright and an excellent negotiator and is, as anyone who has ever met her will confirm, utterly charming. These are qualities she will need badly to get the job done.

The continental European in me is obviously disappointed that the top jobs were not given to stronger, more charismatic personalities. But the hay may around the Lisbon Treaty showed that not all 27 member states want a more integrated Europe. These sentiments have to be respected; I believe last nights appointment were made in that spirit.

The post of Foreign High Representative combines several new jobs. Apart from sharing the monthly meeting of the EU Foreign Secretaries and leading 8.000 diplomats of the new European diplomatic service, she will also act as Vice-Chief of the European Commission. She will have to handle big egos and differing agendas. She will have to listen to 27 sometimes conflicting voices and create a consistent one; she will have to represent a European Common Foreign Policy on the international stage which has failed to be united on many occasions in the past.

But Cathy Ashton has proven that she has the talent to bring conflicting parties together and building consens. She was responsible for taking the Lisbon treaty through the House of Lords. She has a strong track record in campaigning for social rights and equality, which gives reason to hope that human rights will continue to play a strong role in Europe's Foreign Policy.

No, she is not as experienced and glamorous as Hillary Clinton, neither does she have the standing of an Angela Merkel. But giving the foreign top job to a British woman with a strong talent for bringing together parties at odds is a clever way of making sure that Britain remains at the heart of Europe without antagonising its European Partners. It is a good result for women, it is a good result for Europe, and it is most certainly a good result for Britain.

The Sun triumphs again with distasteful journalism

I watch in horror today as the bereaved mother of a dead solider is presented to the media to criticize Gordon Brown's handwriting and question his intention and sincerity. The Sun newspaper banner framing the shot conjures up images of Sun newspaper journalists snickering together, at that very moment, gleefully enjoying the spectacle they have created...

What a despicable thing for a newspaper to do to a woman who has lost their son, a time when a person is desperately trying to come to terms with their suffering and loss, with the blackness of bereavement sinking in, the reality that they will never see their son again and trying to do so with some dignity. The Sun has exploited this woman in her darkest hour citing a clearly well intentioned letter, attempting to humiliate the PM. These are crude, bully boy tactics in a situation requiring great delicacy. Do the Sun think the general public are stupid? They saw that the Sun shifted it's allegiance to the Tories at a moment carefully timed to undermine Gordon Brown after his conference speech, you can be sure that they see this act for what it is, a very cruel abuse of a grieving mother for political ends. The BBC news reports that their emails and texts are mainly in support of Gordon Brown in terms of his good intentions.

But I'm not surprised at their cruelty. In very emotive subjects they like to fuel the fire rather than report a balanced picture - I remember over ten years ago at a time when there was a debate over Japan granting an apology for events in the war decades before, they published a picture of a Japanese person distorted beyond recognition to play to people's stereotypes and fears, and stir the basest and most unhelpful emotions up to the surface. Their level of acceptability has simply not moved on from these tactics.

There is nothing worse than feeling that you have hurt and wronged a grieving person, it is a time when each bereaved person deserves respect and space, and heartfelt sympathy and support. I don't doubt that this mother was offended by a lack of sentiment in the letter or by other means which she has reason to complain about, and this should be heard. However the Sun newspaper lending their ear and making a public spectacle of it is exploiting her for their own ends at this time and unlike GB's gaffe however hurtful, is fully intentioned and politically targeted.
________________________________


I've started my own blog at http://beckybrady.wordpress.com
and can be followed on Twitter at @beckybradyleeds

A shocking distortion of the Equal Pay law

The bin strike in Leeds rumbles on, now in its eighth week, even the Prime Minister has called for both sides to find a solution to end the dispute for the people of Leeds whose overflowing bins are bringing both misery and health concerns, amid fears it could continue to Christmas.

But the issue is not simply a pay-cut issue in difficult economic times, although it is reported that the council wish to cut workers' pay by a third in a wage barely over £17000 per year. The council have argued that due to Equal Pay legislation and job evaluation exercises, they have assessed the role as equivalent to that of women doing a less well paid role and rather than raising women's pay, they want to cut the pay of (mainly male) refuse workers instead. This is a gross misapplication of the Equal Pay ethos which is designed to address the endemic failure in society to pay women the same rate as men. Equal Pay provided legal means to ensure that 'women's work' can be raised to its appropriate standing and tackle inequality.

This is then an abuse of the spirit of the law which is intended to protect women, providing a callous pay-cut justification to a council wishing to save money, so hundreds of men will suffer as a result. Not only are their wages being cut but at the same time society is sending them a message about their worth and value at a time when it should be helping those on low pay to remain in their homes and to keep the economy moving.

But of equal concern is how the laws intended to provide equality to women are being subverted. So along with the plight of hundreds of men there is a feminist case to defend in the refuse collector's strike action. We cant allow legislation intended to raise women's pay be used to justify paying both genders the lowest common denominator.

Have We Never Had it So Good?

I cannot have been the only Assistant Principal who wondered a few weeks ago. ‘Will there be a job still for me in the 2 billion pound cuts of the future?’Ed Balls has said that money will be saved by cutting bureaucracy and creating school federations - reducing the number of senior leaders. Jobs, he has said, will be lost through ‘natural wastage’. For the first time the recession that has been so real for architect and banker friends threatens to impact on us in the sheltered public sector. Eek.

As a historian I find it fascinating to think about how the present will be viewed in the future. Will the Naughties be the time ‘we never had it so good’. It is easy to forget the changes we have witnessed. Some are huge whilst others are little ideas that have made a big difference.Going to school in Cardiff, the largest comprehensive in Wales, I remember the building was crumbling - the paint literally peeling off the walls. There were frequent teacher strikes and a boycott of school trips because of pay cuts. Since 1997, 4000 schools have been built, rebuilt or refurbished including four in the local area. It is now standard to have computers and interactive white boards in classrooms, smaller classes supported by teaching assistants and different activities provided in after school clubs. Have we already forgotten the days of buying our own coloured pencils and booking the TV and video for a special showing of History File?

When I started teaching I was inspired by the promise of investment in the profession both in terms of salary and status. I have been lucky enough to benefit from two professional development programmes Fast Track and now Future Leaders. Having the opportunity to visit schools in Boston as part of the programme was incredible and made me realise what was possible.Then there are the little things. Booked Up is a scheme which gives all Year 7 students a free book which they can choose. There is a well established link between poverty and low literacy levels so this scheme is a simple idea that gets children talking about books as well as the joy of owning their own copy.

So will Future Leaders programme survive the cuts? Will there be jobs for us in the senior leadership teams of the future?What is most important is that when decisions are made about how money should be saved, the most important criteria should be - how does this impact on young people? Effective leadership is essential in good schools and though it may be tempting to save cash by cutting expensive senior positions, care needs to be taken that the gains that have been made in the last decade are not squandered because ‘management’ is not a popular way to spend money.

People are the most important resource in our education system. People need to be the spending priority.

But then I would say that.

The Gude Cause March in Edinburgh.

On Saturday I joined thousands of people in marching across the Meadows to mark 100years since the suffragettes took to the streets of Edinburgh. Because of course we’re still two decades off marking the centenary of women’s suffrage itself. Not until 1928 did women ‘enjoy’ the same right to vote as men.
- Could your granny vote?

In 2009, twenty general elections later, there are just 126 female MPs. 76% of which are Labour.

Rapid progress in the Blair years seemed to develop a degree of complacency about gender representation.

Just look at the Scottish Parliament results in 2007 where the total number of females slid from 39.5% to 33.3%.

The problem lay with the growing SNP back benches, filled with generic and often indistinguishable men.

In 1999, the SNP returned 43 per cent female MSPs, this dropped to 33 per cent in 2003 and again to just 25.5 per cent in 2007. Interestingly, the Labour group remained 50% men, 50% women. Why? Because women’s liberation and the fight for gender equality are causes written into the Labour movement.

Labour is the only party seriously committed to achieving gender equality amongst its Parliamentarians. Why? Because it uses methods of positive discrimination to make it so. All women shortlists are of course the most controversial of these methods and I’ve long been a defender of this process.

The most common argument I hear men make against the case for All Women Shortlists is that it should be based on merit and merit alone.

“May the best man win.” Aye, that says it all.

Of course, if I was feeling particularly flippant, I’d suggest that if political party’s selection processes were truly based on merit – both our Parliaments would look a little different.

And what say the Tories? For of course there were famously more David’s on their front bench than there were women until Mr Davis resigned.

I recently looked at the 50 most marginal seats in the UK to see what would happen to gender equality in our Parliament in the highly unlikely event of a Tory election victory. My conclusion was zero – there would be absolutely no change to the number of female MPs. Neither a cause of celebration or disdain - but stalemate is the enemy of progress.

And progress is what we need.

The pay gap, poverty, low paid jobs, maternity rights, pension rights, opportunity, education, domestic abuse are all priorities for this Government, powered by female Labour MPs.

The national minimum wage is considered one of the most significant achievements of this Labour Government, but people often forget that this policy delivered the most for women. Work that the campaign for a living wage would build on.

When Nicola Sturgeon and Johann Lamont stood in for their respective leaders at First Ministers' Questions last week, they provided one of the most energetic bouts of the parliamentary session. Yet a well known journalist of this very paper remarked that it was “like ladies day at Ascot without the hats.”

Oh how that enraged the women of Holyrood’s corridors.

The Gude Cause march was an opportunity for everyone to celebrate all that has been done to progress the cause for gender equality and reflect upon all that there is to do ahead. This video attempts to capture some of that feeling:

Is a flawed election better than no vote at all?

Remember this post and also this one relating to the legislation passed in Afghanistan in April which obliged Shia women to sexually submit to their husbands once every four days and to obtain her husband's permission before leaving the house? Remember the Shia women who had rocks and sticks thrown at them, were called "un-Islamic dogs" and received death threats for daring to go out on the streets and demonstrate against this barbaric legislation that many described as being "worse than the Taliban"?

I thought I would take this opportunity to expand on the post by CaptainJako who writes for a very good blog "Frank Owen's Paintbrush" which has kept me both informed and entertained during my 6 months out of the UK.

Back in April we were almost willing to give President Hamid Karzai the benefit of the doubt when he claimed not to have fully read the legislation before signing it and he confirmed that it would be reviewed and amended prior to elections. It seemed that the international pressure from world leaders, including Gordon Brown and President Obama, prevailed over the demands of the Shia clerics claiming to have influence over the voting intentions of the Shia community in Afghanistan.

The amended legislation was quietly signed into law earlier this month. But President Karzai didn't really live up to his promise: the amended legislation is just as abhorrent and allows men to withhold food and maintenance from their wives if they do not sexually submit to them. Back in April, the Guardian reported that Gordon Brown urged President Karzai "You cannot have British troops fighting, and in some cases dying, to save a democracy where that democracy is infringing human rights."

But where is the international condemnation this time?

The elections will take place this Thursday against a background of alleged corruption, mounting violence across the country and of course, the unfortunate news that the British death toll in Afghanistan passed 200 earlier this week. It would appear that the international community does not want to speak out on behalf of Shia women this time around, for fear that it might upset the "smooth" running of the election.

I have three problems with this:

1. It doesn't look as if the election is going to run very smoothly anyway, with the BBC reporting today that voting cards are being offered for sale and that thousands of dollars are being offered in bribes to buy votes;
   
2. If there's any time to raise concerns that a country's Constitution has been violated and that international human rights have been breached, it's during an election campaign when the country is at its most politically engaged; and
   
3. The women who fall victim to the new legislation may not even be able to vote in the elections. Because most polling stations will be operated by men, it is unlikely that women will feel comfortable turning up to vote - even if their husbands and fathers permit them to do so. Unfortunately, there are very few women-only polling stations and very few policewomen to carry out the necessary body searches upon. It's unclear just how many women would need to be recruited in order to have enough women-only polling stations, but some news outlets are reporting as many as 42,000.
   

So is a flawed election better than no election at all? With only 2 days until the election and with Ramadan starting very soon thereafter, let's just hope that Gordon puts the pressure back on in October and that the brave Afghan women do not give up hope and do not give up the fight for their freedom.

What Labour women should know about feminism

A friend of mine, a couple of years ago, when asked what she would like for Christmas, requested some books on feminism. It was time, she decided, to get up to speed with what feminism meant in today’s society. The present giver looked for such books and could find none, just works from the seventies and eighties.

If you are interested in feminist and cultural history, these are great. But if you want a look at feminism in the noughties, they are not much help. For although we have much to thank previous generations of feminists for – our great grandmothers secured the vote, our grandmothers made it normal to go out to work, our mothers could have the contraceptive pill, have an abortion if they needed one and own property without a male signatory – feminism has moved on somewhat. We need books that help us understand our place in today’s world, where women are free to behave badly, but are judged more harshly than men for doing so, where ‘having it all’ when it comes to work and the family, is possible, but at a price, and where dungarees are out and yummy mummies are in.

So I started thinking about what feminism means to me and my friends. Some of us, for example, have married, and some have not. Of the married ones some have changed our names upon marriage and some have not. I am a Ms, others kept Miss for as long as possible and others use Mrs with pride. We all work, some have children. We are financially independent. Some of us share our money with our partner, others don’t. Some of us wear high heels, some of us refuse to. The same goes for short skirts and strappy tops. Some of us do all the washing and cleaning in the household. Others of us share it. Some of us pay someone else to do it. But the more I thought about this the more I realised how much we had in common. After all, we all want to be treated equally, to be able to make our own decisions about life, to be able to feel safe walking down the street, to enjoy our careers and not to be judged by our marital status. And I realised that whatever decisions we make in our own lives, as long as we make them freely then we are all feminists, whether we use that word or not.

And in fact there are good books for my generation out there. Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs is excellent. So are Manifesta by Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards and Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica Valenti. But these are all by Americans. I wanted to do the same from a British perspective.

The result is my book, published this month, The Noughtie Girl’s Guide to Feminism. It looks at areas that occur in our everyday lives and ponders upon what this means from a feminist perspective – from who washes the underwear to what jobs you apply for, from whether vibrators should be shaped like a penis to why we need more public toilets.

The issue of feminism is hugely political, but it is not necessarily party political. My Labour politics inform my thinking, and therefore the book, at all times. And my definition of feminism is largely focussed on the concept of choice, a key New Labour concept (and of course a key Thatcher one, though I reject her use of it). But one of the problems with Labour is that it gets bogged down in thinking about feminism as being just about childcare, working hours, health and carers, and in thinking about feminism in terms of the dungarees and placard that typified British feminism thirty years ago. But as all noughtie girls know, women’s live are about far more than that. Those issues are important, of course, but we also care about defence, about transport, about farming and about foreign affairs. And we no longer conform to the dungaree stereotype.

I’m hoping my book helps bring together feminists from across the political spectrum. But above all I am hoping that Labour women, and men, read it, and realise that in feminism, like in Labour politics, although there are disagreements and factions, we ultimately have more in common than we have apart, and that by accepting this we form some common goals to work towards.

La Burqa

In 2004, the government made school uniform, truly "uniform" when it prohibited the wearing of any religious symbols (including headscarves, turbans and skullcaps) in all state schools. A large number of students who defied the ban and continued to wear such items were subsequently expelled and forced to pay for private tuition instead. The law excluded and isolated the very people that it intended to liberate. I think we are about to experience a severe case of deja vu.

Just what France needs: a commission to "study the extent of burkha-wearing." President Sarkozy isn't going to wait around for the results though, announcing yesterday that "burkhas are not welcome here."

This move by Sarkozy is not entirely surprising, considering the decision of the Conseil d'Etat last year to deny French citizenship to a Moroccan woman on the grounds that she insisted on wearing a burkha. Whilst praising the decision, minister Fadela Amara described the burkha as a "prison." Yesterday, Mr Sarkozy went further to describe such women as "prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity" -- an insult to the fashionistas methinks, lots of women spend absolute fortunes on their "netting."

When I first moved to the Middle East, I was shocked when I first saw women wearing a niqab with an eye veil so that the entire face is covered, even the eyes. It was difficult for me to imagine that there was a human being underneath the black chiffon. It was certainly very strange to be browsing through the clothes in TopShop alongside women in burkhas.

After 4 months living here, the burkha now seems very normal to me and I find it very beautiful. I met with one of our client's key business representatives a few weeks ago -- she is a woman and of course, she wears a burkha.

My message to Mr Sarkozy: you cannot change someone else's culture for them and you certainly cannot change it overnight. By banning the burkha, you may well be taking away the one thing that actually liberates Muslim women in France. Without the burkha, some women may not leave their homes at all.

Labour Women's Network training

It's great to see LWN have put an event together to give women training for parliamentary selections. Full details from their recent newsletter are below.

LWN Training & Personal Development Opportunity
We are running a training weekend from the evening of Friday 10 July to the morning of Sunday 12 July. This is for women who are serious about wanting to be selected to fight a parliamentary seat and are prepared to invest time and effort in achieving it. We will be looking at a whole range of actvities, including personal planning, media skills and CV writing, and you will also be able to meet like-minded women for a great weekend of politics and personal development.

LWN is financing most of the costs of the weekend, and is therefore able to offer it to participants for only £50 - which includes 2 nights' accomodation, meals, and all materials for the course. (You will have to pay your own travel to and from the venue, which is in Leominster, and is accessible by train.) Please note that the training is only open to members of Labour Women's Network.

This is an unmissable opportunity for any woman who really wants to win, and places are limited. If you would like to apply for one, please email our Training Co-ordinator, Ann Leedham-Smith, at annleedham@hotmail.co.uk explaining why you want to do the training, whether or not you have done any previous LWN training, whether you have stood as a candidate before, and what your ambitions are. We hope you get a place and look forward to seeing you there!

Parliamentary Selections
As you will know, a number of MPs have recently announced that, for one reason or another, they will not be standing at the next General Election. Labour-held seats include Elmet & Rothwell (notional majority 6,078), Wirral South (notional maj 3,538), Barrow & Furness (notional maj 4,843), Makerfield (notional maj 17,903), Carlisle (notional maj 5,085), Luton South (notional maj 5,698) and Reading West (notional maj 4,931). There are also vacancies in marginal seats and in seats held by the Tories and Liberal Democrats - and we need good candidates in all of them!

At this stage we don't know which will be all-women shortlists and which open, but we do know that we will need good women candidates to seek selection. If you would like to sign up for our special selection alert service (currently being developed) please let us know by emailing us at lwn@lwn.org.uk. And if you know good Labour women who should be encouraged to stand, get them to join LWN, attend training, and go for it!

Finally, the earlier the information we have about selections, the better. If you know of vacancies which are coming up, please let us know so that we can let other women know. And if you get selected for a seat, let us know so that we can celebrate your success!

A few thoughts today ...

1. I was really proud to vote for two great labour women on Thursday: Sandra Holland for Mayor of Doncaster and Linda McAvan at the top of our euro candidates list.

2. I can’t believe instead we have a mayor who stood for a party that wants to withdraw from the UN Convention on Refugees. Meanwhile he’s going to stamp out political correctness, by which as far as I can tell, he means anything to improve the position of women, black people or gay people.

3. While personally I support electoral reform for Westminster we need to be really careful about ‘compromise’ systems such as that for Mayoral elections. In London everyone knew it was between Boris and Ken and could use their second preference accordingly. In Doncaster no-one saw the English Democrats coming so I didn’t use my second preference against them and was effectively disenfranchised in the final round. If we’d had either first past the post, or a proper preference system I’m he wouldn’t have been elected. The fact that only 601 votes separated the top three candidates made only putting two through to the final round a farce.

4. I’m astonished – but perhaps I shouldn’t be – that this election is getting almost no national media coverage.