by Atul Hatwal
Last week Ben Cobley wrote for Uncut about all women shortlists. It wasn’t a reactionary rant. He wasn’t dressed in a batman costume, sitting at the top of Big Ben when he wrote it. The tone was measured and the points reasoned.
While most comment, on both sides of the discussion was similarly nuanced, some of the responses were pavlovian, at best. Little effort to engage with what had been written, just a standard rehearsal of long established positions.
Yesterday, Luke Akehurst gave us one of the better versions of the conventional case for AWS over at Labour List.
In theory, I should support what Luke is saying.
I believe in all women shortlists. I see the logic of why AWS is needed – a second best solution in a third best world. And not enough has been achieved to achieve greater women’s representation. 81 female Labour MPs out of a parliamentary Labour party of 258 still leaves Labour nearly 50 MPs short of achieving equality.
But Luke and similar defenders of AWS lose me.
In his piece, Ben raises the rhetorical question – why only shortlists for women? Surely the same logic could be applied to other groups?
He’s right.
Ben is consistent in the way he draws his conclusions. All types of discrimination are wrong, therefore preferential shortlists should be ended.
If only the official party line, which backs positive action to tackle inequality, were similarly rigorous.
For of all those who manned (so to speak) the barricades in defence of AWS, equality seems to stop at gender. Zero discussion about ethnic minority or disabled communities. Equality is a principle worth fighting for, but not worth applying equally.
