Mr Stone has been pulled up by Nick Clegg for writing degrading comments about MPs, especially women, on Guido Fawkes blog. When looking at the nature of the comments, he deserves to be removed as a prospective MP in Newcastle East. The comments regarding women MPs are specifically interesting, highlighting how politics, thus, our party, is affected by the engrained inequality in society towards women. Most comments discussing the women focus on their appearance, such as disgustingly suggesting that Blears looks as though she has had lots of Botox, to later say that a stroke instead of Botox is what has affected her facial features. Guido and Stone may say it was political banter, but I hardly think that stroke suffers and disability campaigners will find those comments acceptable, nor helpful.
The Telegraph remarks:
“Women MPs were singled out for harsh treatment. Anne McIntosh, the Conservative MP for the Vale of York – against whom Mr Stone stood in 2001 – was attacked four times. She was variously described as “a depressed woman in blue”, ” needing a makeover”, being “in spinster librarian mode again” and looking “like a deckchair today”.”
This further highlights the specific focus on women’s appearance that Stone choose to criticise. This is something that our party should automatically respond to, not just in words but in actions. It simply is not acceptable for a leading PLP in a target seat to be saying these sorts of things, even if it was just ‘political banter’. Further attacks on women MPs included saying that Theresa Villiers and Mrs May lacked dress sense, Sharon Hodgson was described as the “thickest MP in the House”, and Roberta Blackman-Woods was described as a “sour-faced bitch”. How are these comments acceptable by a PLP if we are suppose to promote equality for women and equality in general? They simply do not match the party’s supposed values. Furthermore, these types of comments towards women highlight the engrained problem of discrimination in society, such as objectification and disability discrimination.
Clegg can distance himself from these comments all he wants, but his lack of action highlights how our party are often unable to put their values and rhetoric into action.
December 21, 2009 at 6:56 am
What a pillock. What a wazzock. What a numpty. I hear Chubby Brown is deeply offended by you bonny lad. Your comments Stonee are pathetic and in all regards entirely unacceptable. You should be replaced by a suitable female candidate. I am not advocating positive discrimination
the imbalance is readily addressed by the entirely acceptable principle of more favourable treatment of women. Jane Watkinson is absolutely right Stones type of behaviour will alert voters to the possibility that more general dicriminatory attitudes in all other areas of equality, including disability and race, infest the party. Stones comments are not merely unfortunate they are disgraceful and “will” call into question the leaderships commitment to equality if ignored. This is an incident that at least every women in the party needs to burden our Nick with. Should prove a good test as to whether or not women here are wasting their time. Certainly as a relatively recent addition to the disabled community I will be monitoring developments under my electron microscope. I joined this party in response to its expressed committment to equality. In circumstances where it seems to me that expressed committment is bogus I will surely reconsider my support. Discussions on how to increase numbers of women MP’s have become laden with disingenuous periphrasis, intellectual dishonesty and verbal legerdemain. It is not positive discrimination to ensure that more women are selected it is positive discrimination not to. Treating women more favourably in these circumstances balances the scales and avoids positive discrimination. Bring the principle of more favorable treatment into this specific equation and the problem is solved by cancelling the excuses. There is no excuse. If this country continues in failing to treat 50% percent of the population significantly less favorably than the other 50%
I see very little hope for ethnic minorities and disabled folk, none in fact. They should seek alternative representation.
But this snotty-nosed little jerk needs to go. Today!
SMAC
December 21, 2009 at 9:53 am
The figures show though that Greg Stone’s comments aside (which I haven’t yet read), there is no institutional bias against women.
Women get approved as candidates in roughly the proportion they stand for approval, fairing no worse than men. Furthermore, if a woman candidate puts herself forward (or is encouraged to do so) for a seat, she is more likely to be chosen than any male candidates on the list.
This is not to say everything is alright, we clearly need more women candidates. There needs to be a huge job done to encourage more women to put themselves forward as candidates.
I think attitudes such as yours, rather than attitudes like Nicks, are part of the problem. Women are discouraged from coming forward they think the system is against them the numbers show this is far from true.
What ordinary members like you and me need to take on board is that being a candidate is tough. We often expect too much of those who put themselves forwards, and this could also be one of the factors that discourages women more than men.
The system needs to be more nutruring, encouraging and supportive. We need our candidates, we need to support them.
December 21, 2009 at 12:53 pm
If you believe there is no institutional bias against women then take a trip over to EHRC website. I will expect you to change your mind. This time at least attempt to read the information available to you and your Mr Stone.
Give me the proof and the sources supporting your asertions on approval of women. Include disabled persons and ethnic minorities..
By saying ” this is not to say everything is alright” you
contradict yourself, obviously!
When you say “attitudes such as yours” do you mean I am wrong to take to task politicians that attempt to progress their careers by making gratuitous, demeaning comments about women at the same time as vomiting deeply offensive comments against disabled folk. I do not want this odious little man representing me. That is my opinion and my position not my attitude.
I am sure what you mean to say is “ordinary members like me that have a vote”. Being a candidate might well be tough but I have a reasonable expectation they will be polite and very alert to issues of equality especially sensitive to those more vulnerable than they are. One quality a candidate ought reasonably to have is recognising the disastrous consequences associated with opening their big mouth to issue gratuitous insults to women and disabled folk. Stones comments about stroke victims are nothing short of horrific. Now, you have already confirmed your inate aversion to the written word but I do suggest you read Janes post for a second time. This time apply more concentration and discernment. This will result in you being fully informed if you ever make comments at a later date.
When Mr Stone goes he will readily and easily be replaced by someone far more suitable and endearing. Furthermore if you and others like you adopt a similarly arrogant attitude as you display here this party will have very serious problems. I will fully support a suitable replacement to Mr Stone. Do not call my loyalty into question over this vapid little man. I have very high standards pertaining to Members of Parliament. Don’t you? Finally there is nothing to be achieved nurturing a corrupt and unfair system. You replace it.
Best Wishes
SMAC (A Geordie).
December 21, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I did not contradict myself. Saying problem A does not exist, and the problem is more likely to be B is in no way a logical contradiction.
My point in no way endorses or defends the action of Cllr Stone. If you are reading that from my comment, you misunderstand what I said.
December 21, 2009 at 10:00 am
That is not an endorsement of Greg Stone’s attitudes in any way shape or form, but a (longer than I expected) discussion of the bigger picture.
December 21, 2009 at 10:20 am
[...] Dem blogger Jane Watkinson has some sharp words for Greg here. Share this story with your [...]
December 21, 2009 at 11:25 am
Thanks you for the comments.
Smith, i totally agree with what you say. Nor am i in favour of positive discriminiation, but treating women with equality is often equated to this. I am often sceptical of why i am in this party when i hear and see such discriminatory practices. I can’t add any more to this, as i agree 100% with your comments. Well said.
Rankersbo, instituional bias against women does not just refer to whether they are chosen if they stand, it refers to the actual structure and culture of politics that is not women friendly. I have blogged on this before, but local political selections are a testament to this. I went to a lib dem selection to only to be told by a lib dem member that i should get back into the kitchen! They are the type of attitudes still in politics, and simply saying that women are selected more is wrong.
This may mean that women are more appropriate candidates when they stand, and then you would ask well why are more women not standing. However, instead what it shows that positive discriminiation is more applied to women, something i totally disagree with.
How is attitudes like mine, which say that talking about women in this way and highlighting the real issues of cultural inequality women face worse than Nick’s? Who allows someone to talk about other MPs in such discriminating ways? Making women and disabled people see the discriminating attitudes that they will more than likely face in politics?
Toughness is the wrong criteria to use to say that is why women are less likely to do politics then men, that is such a wrong biological argument it is untrue. Instead you have to realise that it is social cultural factors that make this the case, the constant undermining of women’s confidence, the unfair child provision that women are often faced to do. These are the reasons women are less likely to do politics, not that they are somehow biologically less tough!
December 21, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I think that you’re arguing against several points that I did not actually make. I was worried that people would read into my answer things I had not written, hence my clarification.
I do not defend in any way the behaviour and attitudes of Greg Stone.
What I do question is that there are any institutional barriers specific to women. The problem with our lack of women (or indeed disabled or BME) candidates is not that people are biased against them- they demonstrably aren’t, but that too few come forwards in the first place.
Suggesting that there is some kind of bias that isn’t actually there will put people off standing- the idea of a bias is more of a problem than any actual bias.
Being a candidate is tough, and this is a fact that is not appreciated by the membership who select them. It is perhaps appreciated by women who may well decide they have better things to do than stand. This statement in no way criticises women but highlights a problem we need to deal with.
December 21, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I am arguing against points you clearly did make.
Thank you for making your position clear on Stones comments, conduct and behaviour. You seem to imply you are against such conduct, comments and behaviour. That is most reassuring.
No, an actual problem is real and tangible. Suggesting an imaginary bias exists instead is intellectually dishonest.
People recognise a ghost when they see one.
You are fully entitled to personally question the existence of institutional barriers against women. But you should not
restrict your questions to the confines of your own head.
Everyday women, ethnic minorities and disabled folk attempt to navigate themselves in a society that is factually, evidentially and demonstrably hostile and intolerant toward them. I again refer you to EHRC website.
Your view that women have better things to do than become MP’s is an unprecedented assumption. By you.
But I admit your originality there. I have not heard that joke before.
Best Wishes
SMAC (A Geordie)
December 21, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I was so cross at the way you misrepresened what I wrote I overlooked one point in your reply.
Comments such as “get back in the kitchen”
I do agree that toughness is not necessarily a good quality (and I’m sorry that I was so annoyed at the suggestion that I thought otherwise that I didn’t engage with this point). In fact I have argued in the past that the toughness of the process may mean we the white middle aged males who are overrepresented may not even be the best white middle aged males!
The post of mine above argues that the process and job is too tough- not that we need tough candidates. But it is too tough for everyone, not for any group in particular.
December 21, 2009 at 1:52 pm
You don’t say whether the comment was made seriously or in jest. But this is irrelevant. Comments such as “get back in the kitchen” are not acceptible however they are made.
December 21, 2009 at 3:28 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jane Watkinson, Dominic Llewellyn. Dominic Llewellyn said: Lib Dem activist calls on my Lib Dem opponent to resign after his disgusting comments http://tinyurl.com/ye3wfmr [...]
December 22, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I live in Newcastle East, and I have to confess I was going to vote Lib Dem for the first time this time around. I’ve always felt that Labour was the traditional home of we Feminists in the past, but frankly, like many sisters, I’ve become disillusioned. But after Mr Stone’s idiotic schoolboy outbursts, I’m in a quandry. Surely the Lib Dem leadership should have the confidence to replace him with a better candidate? At this rate, I may end up sticking with Labour, despite all my reservations and disappointments.
December 22, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Rankersbo, I read from your comment that there is no institutional bias and that the reason women don’t go forward is because it is their problem. That is what i wholly disagree with, the reason women and disabled people don’t stand is because of societal discrimination. It is totally naive and ignorant to deny it.
Jay, I can understand your disappointment, i often feel like that. To be honest, each party in politics does not fully represent women and minorities as they should. I can understand the confusion of who to vote for, the leadership should remove him to solve the problem, immediately.
December 23, 2009 at 11:39 am
No, that’s not a fair or accurate paraphrasing of what I wrote, sorry.
I’ll have to leave it there, as I don’t feel another polite clarification will help matters.
December 23, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Greg Stone needs to withdraw or get the boot. It seems to me he is causing perfectly decent LibDems to fight amongst themselves. Given the nature of his comments I do not think he is worth the friction. Although one solution might be for Nick to order him to take some Equality training after which he should apologise and make a donation to the Newcastle Stroke Society (or similar society) he should also put in 100 hours voluntary work at a local care facility for disabled folk. Who disagrees with my solution?
December 23, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Ok, fair enough.
December 23, 2009 at 1:17 pm
And please remember this is about what Greg Stone said
not what Rankersbo said. Greg Stone made unacceptable remarks about disabled folk and women. Greg Stone said the things he said and that is not disputed. The issue is the Greg Stone insults to disabled folk and women.
Greg Stone. Greg Stone. Greg Stone.
December 23, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Agreed.
December 27, 2009 at 6:31 pm
[...] Greg Stone should have the candidacy removed if we are supposedly the party of equality on Jane Watkinson’s My Liberal Democrat Political Ramblings blog. The Lib Dem candidate for [...]
January 8, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I’ve just got a leaflet through my door from the Labour lot. Looks like they are having a field-day with this one. They’re quoting from local media reports like the Sunday Sun, Chronicle and even national reports in the Mirror and frankly it’s making for painful reading:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tags/greg-stone/
http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2010/01/03/councillor-greg-stone-slammed-for-outburst-79310-25511355/
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2010/01/07/councillor-s-future-in-balance-over-remarks-72703-25546557/
January 8, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Thanks for the comment and links.
I am frankly not surprised Labour and the Tories are doing that, what Stone said was wrong and goes against our core values. We would be doing exactly the same thing, he should of had his candidacy removed, however, it is good that they are going to discuss whether they should remove it soon.
January 8, 2010 at 10:09 pm
[...] discrimination in society January 8, 2010 — janewatkinson There is no wonder that Greg Stone’s discriminatory comments found their way onto Guido Fawkes’s blog, when you consider the level of discrimination [...]
January 9, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Hi, Jane-
Just heard from a friend who works for Lib Dems in Newcastle, they may have deselected Greg Stone!
Trying to find out more, will let you know if I get confirmation.
January 9, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Really? Thanks for the information, keep me posted.
January 10, 2010 at 7:38 pm
He’s gone!
January 10, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Really? Well done the local party, you can’t help feel sorry for him though at the same time but I don’t believe someone with those views should represent the Liberal Democrats. Thanks for informing me.
January 14, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Jane you were completely and absolutely right to persue this nasty incident. I cared for my Mum for 4 years she had motor neurone disease. One characteristic is she kept having mini-strokes. I would make her comfortable for the night leaving her with a happy smiling face. Whenever I woke to see mums face twisted and distorted by another stroke my heart would crash. These incidents are private I know. But I have to say Mums strokes would control my emotional ups and downs in a way I can’t fully articulate.
Stones comments made me think of Mum, and blind folk can really see clear pictures in their head. I got very sad and angry at the same time with Mr Stone. I thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the public. I think the outcome will, in the long term, benefit LibDems.
SMAC
January 14, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Thanks for the comment and support smith-macintyre. Thankyou for sharing that about your mum, I am sorry to hear about your mum – stories such as yours justify how wrong Stone’s comments were. When you have lived through it and have personal experience of what Stone seemed to see as just a bit of political fun, it brings it closer to home how wrong comments such as Stone’s are and how unhelpful they are for furthering the rights of disabled people in society. I thank you for your thanking. Highlighting the need for more disability rights in society is something I want to keep on fighting for. I share your belief this will benefit the Liberal Democrats too.