Female Folly of New Tory 'Boy King.'

Do you remember when flares went out of fashion, at the start of the Eighties? Just as the last bastion of old fashioned, parallel trouser wearers - middle-aged professional and business gents - decided to get 'with it' and ordered their new suits with a discrete, slightly skirt-like widening below the knee, flares became outmoded. They had forked out money to look even more dated than before.

Flared trousers had suddenly become a sign that the wearer was a tramp, or else a mere bundle of magnetic traces, stored on Betamax, unrolled late at night and presented as an Open University lecturer.

In other words, down and out and drifting, or just an image. Like the Tory Party, in a way.

Do you remember the last General Election, when Labour got caught with their trousers off in Wales, wearing a skirt to appear more attractive - a fetish formerly more prevalent in the ranks of the emotionally deprived, ex boarding school chaps of the Tory Party?

This spectacular example of feminizing folly was when the Labour national executive forced some constituencies to field women candidates. Long serving Labour man Peter Law stood as an independent to face out the WOMAN-ONLY SHORTLIST SCAM and won handsomely against the official Labour woman candidate in the safest Labour seat in the country.

He secured the once-staunch Labour constituency of Blaenau Gwent in Wales, which had previously been represented by such former Labour greats as Aneurin Bevan and party leader Michael Foot.

Law won with a majority of over  20,000 votes, which meant that, even though he was standing against the might of the official Labour machine, operating in their heartland, he actually improved on the previous majority of the retiring Labour Member of Parliament, Llew Smith, who had won in 2001 with a majority of 19,300.

Maggie Jones, the candidate chosen by Labour bosses as their token 'bit of skirt,' got a sound spanking - electorally speaking: Law won 58.2 percent of the vote, against Jones' 32 percent.

He decided to stand in the Welsh constituency after Labour imposed an all-women shortlist of candidates. Members of the local party were furious with the decision and refused to endorse the selection process or campaign on behalf of Maggie Jones.

"This is what you get when you don't listen to the people," Law said in his acceptance speech. "This is a victory for the people of Blaenau Gwent. We are not here to be manipulated and told what to do."

So, dressing up in skirts did not help Labour there, did it?

Another example was when George Galloway ousted Oona King, the Labour MP who had entered Parliament as a Blair Babe of the 'Class of 97.' This time the gender issue played second fiddle to the Iraq invasion issue, in a constituency with a lot of anti-Bush feeling, but nevertheless Galloway outshone a Labour feminist beacon on the critical night. 

Thus another New Labour political correctoid mascot was gutted and hung in effigy. Oona King was obviously being groomed to the role of a future British Condoleeza Rice. With two politically correct 'jokers' in her hand - she was female and  black, thus entitled to twin fast tracks to promotion - she was getting a bit uppity and needed to be knocked off her perch.

Note the establishment reaction to her losing her seat. On BBC TV, Jeremy Paxman was told to ask George Galloway, "Do you feel proud to have ousted one of the very few black women in Parliament?"

So, it's bad form to stand against a woman MP, is it? Even if there is no formal woman-only shortlist, no quota system, even if it's not your own political party, don't stand for election if there's a woman in the field. There's a good chap. Thousands are dead and our men (not women) are still dying out in Iraq, but the prime imperative is the tokenism of getting a woman from an ethnic minority onto a seat in the chamber.

It was damned unchivalrous of you, George. Besides, as everyone knows, if we get more women into Parliament, we won't have anymore wars. Yes, Oona is pro-invasion, but she's a woman so she doesn't really mean it, does she?

(Incidentally, women did not get the vote for national elections in Switzerland until 1971, and it was  the richest and most peaceful country in Europe!)

As for media treatment of Mr. Law's spectacular upsetting of the feminist apple cart: beyond an initial comment of 'extraordinary' from David Bumblebee, it did not get another mention on BBC's Election Special. There has since been little discussion of the significance of this popular rebellion against women-only shortlists. The fact is, the Establishment do not want this victory for democracy, fairness and common-sense to acquire resonance with the public. They do not want it to enter the anthology of popular political myths and inspiring tales. They want the issue to go away.

But it is a critical issue for our human rights, which are being assaulted on all sides just now.  Speaking on BBC1's  Breakfast  programme (Sunday, 5th June) about the resounding rejection of the proposed European Constitution by French and Dutch voters, Tony Benn alerted us to a new peril:

"I am not even able to vote for my Euro MP," he said, "I am just allowed to tick the box for Labour and Blair decides who it will be."

A danger with this form of Proportional Representation is that it can lead to enforced proportions of women, gays and other alleged victims. In fact, the people's right to choose will be eroded. It is The People who will become the real victim if this sham victimology is advanced.

However, as the Blaenau Gwent Rebellion shows, The People are wising up to the scam of positive discrimination in favour of women politicians. They broke the habit of a lifetime and voted against Labour in their thousands- and they haven't even heard our Men's Civil Rights case - yet!

In politics there is always a time lag between the latest scam to be touted, and the realisation by the general public that - "We wuz ripped off" - by which time new scams are online, and the goal posts have been shifted.

That is how people are ruled - or rather misruled - in a partial democracy like ours. The politicians, and Big Business which they serve, are always a mile ahead in a convoluted paper chase, zigging when we've just started zagging on their trail.They mislead, and they do it deliberately and competently.

But, when David Cameron, in his speech accepting the post of Leader of the Conservative Party, vowed to take measures to get more women into Parliament, I sensed that here was an Incompetent Misleader. Or perhaps a Mislead Leader, ill advised by those who have misread the auguries of the Blaenau Gwent inquest on a feminist corpse.

He has jumped on this feminist bandwagon   too late. If even the Left are now beginning to rebel against imposing talentless women in authority over them, what hope is there that the Right and the 'Floaters' will accept it?

They are calling Cameron the 'New Boy King' - a touch blasphemous at Christmastide - but who cares about Christians anymore? This is the long-awaited messiah who wilt smite the Labourites and turn the Tory opinion poll graphs heavenward. 

Now, consider that other icon they called 'The King' - Elvis Presley.

Had the Tory Leader begun his Acceptance of Anointment as Messiah sermon wearing Elvis flares and platform shoes, crooning "Sisters are doing it for themselves," with a backing chorus of "Girl Power, yea yea yea," the appearance would have matched the reality, that he is trying to wow the women who are wavering over voting Tory.

But women - particularly working class women - have learned much since the Seventies. Cynical though Cameron may be, by playing the 'Wimmyn's Lib' card, he is betraying that he is out of date. His cynicism is no match for the mass cynicism and disillusionment with feminism and political correctness that is sweeping the country.

In every case where women-only shortlists have been contested  - i.e. where the voters have been awakened from their apathy and presented with the facts that dispose of feminist myths - this anti-democratic measure has been soundly defeated.

What are these facts that dispel the victimology myths?

One fact is that women have a built-in political advantage. They greatly outnumber men in the electorate. There are more women in the population.There are more women entitled to the vote than men. And there are more women with easy access to voting, because there are more of them at home or working part time, so they have more chance of getting to the voting booth on the day.

On the other hand, men are disadvantaged beyond their higher death rate and smaller numbers. A large number are working away from home in this country, and many are working overseas. Though theoretically they have a postal vote, it is cumbersome to exercise it from abroad. If one is, say, a lorry driver on a run to Eastern Turkey and back, or a young male expatriate working abroad, one is less likely to be voting fro UK elections and thus balancing out the power of the 5.8% more women in the British population.

This is no minor issue. Len Cook, who was responsible for the April 2001 Census in England and Wales, has said there is a dramatic shortage of young men aged between 20 and 30.

"There was a migration outflow of 600,000 more than we would have thought in the last 10 years," he said to the Daily Telegraph. ['Male Minority in Bridget Jones Britain', 1st October 2002].

"For the large part, that is explained by an unusually large number of young men in their 20s going abroad for a long time or for shorter periods."

Jobs available for young people in other parts of the European Union may also be a factor in the unexpectedly high number of migrants leaving Britain.

Of course, the large numbers of young male immigrants entering Britain - legally and illegally - will balance the numbers out to a degree, but they are unlikely to be voters.

The continued neglect of men's health also increases the female advantage. In fact this is a self-perpetuating loop: Men's health is neglected - So they die off - So they can't vote - So next election can be even more negligent of men's health - So more die off. Thus the male proportion of the electorate is steadily diminishing. (See the mortality graphs in my article Pyramids of Oppression on this website.)

According to one men's civil rights commentator, this is why policies helping men are unpopular with politicians, however just and beneficial to society they may be.

"The politicians are afraid of upsetting women voters, and would rather men suffered injustice than risk losing the votes of women and so not getting voted in at the next election. In other words, they are selling their principles for votes."

Presumably this is a reason for Cameron waving favours and privileges under women's noses. Wowing women voters is not a new tactic. That is why US Senators who have full heads of hair were selected to run for office. That is why politicians shave off the beards that God gave them. It is also why Hitler sported a moustache and lock of hair flopping over his forehead: because women at that time thought them cute.

In fact, the Nazi Party in Germany was projected into power with the women's vote. Women were the most hysterical supporters in the Nazi rallies. No surprise there. Women are hysterical. Women are even more hysterical in crowds. (Look at them at pop concerts, or watching the stars arriving for the cinema awards. And women are normally 'right wing' voters. The weakening of the Unions, the curtailment of civil liberties, the increased State interference in personal matters, and the media dumb-down - i.e. a shift to totalitarianism - have all coincided with the rise of feminism and the power of the women's vote.

In Britain, women voters have been in the majority for three-quarters of a Century now. It has been calculated that without women getting the vote, the Tory Party would never - ever - have been in power in that period. Beside its reliance on the female vote, the Tory Party is massively dependent on its blue-rinsed volunteers.

Another fact disposing of a feminist myth of female dispowerment is, that though women are indeed a minority in places of power, IT IS ONLY IN ELECTED POSTS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PUBLIC DO THE ELECTING.

BEHIND THE SCENES, IN QUANGOS, THE CIVIL SERVICE, HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES  i.e.  IN THE 'INFRASTRUCTURE POWER BASE' WHICH CONTROLS HOW ORDERS FROM THE ELECTED BODIES ARE CARRIED OUT, WOMEN ARE MASSIVELY IN THE MAJORITY.

It is as if they realise that they will not do so well under continual public scrutiny of their actions, and that the voters don't want them, so they wield power secretly and anonymously by other means.

It is significant that those spheres where they do so - health and social services, teaching and child rearing, planning and construction of public works -  have seen a remarkable rise of costs combined with a depressingly relentless decline in standards.

In these hidden places of power, women are over promoted, but that does not - can not - happen so much in open politics because of the thousands of beady eyes scrutinising them. IF WOMEN DON'T GET SELECTED AND ELECTED, IT IS  BECAUSE OTHER WOMEN - THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS - WON'T VOTE FOR THEM.

After several years of men's rights campaigning I have known of no example of a feminist accepting a challenge to an open public debate played by fair rules. The so-called 'debates' on television are a sham. They don't, for example, allow Points of Information to be made. So the femmies can lie and lie and lie without interruption. And they are coached by the production team: told what time they will come in, what they will be asked, and asked what they want kept out. Even directional microphones are used selectively to boost their voices above the opposition.

It is only when hedged around with protection that they will particpate in discussion. They do not have the guts or the honour for proper open politics.

Of course, there have been - and still are - a few women politicians who got their position by merit. They stood fair and square against men - or other women - and won the confidence of the voters - and their respect of their male peers.

The idea that women don't get into Parliament due to prejudice against them is nonsense, and the public know it. They recall Margaret Thatcher: she got in without a shortlist or other patronising measure, and so did Barbara Castle, Bessie Braddock and Dame Irene Ward - to name a few more battle-axes.

Forcing women to vote for women they don't trust: - is that women's liberation? To get women into Parliament by devious means is spurning the wishes of the people in the constituencies. They are entitled to choose the best candidate, regardless of sex, when the time comes.

One final fact: the proposition that women need to get into Parliament to secure their interests is a red herring. Men are already doing that well enough. Indeed, women MP's feel they can order women around in a way that men would not dare do: for example Patricia Hewitt telling them to get to work when their babies are 6 weeks old and pay back the cost of their education! Imagine a Tory male MP saying that!

The fact is that women are in a permanent majority, run the unelected power structure, and have droves of Echo Feminists to serve them. (Echo Feminist = a man who repeats feminist propaganda without putting it through a brain first.)

Labour Constituency Parties are defying attempts to impose women candidates on them. They want to leave the field open to all candidates to be judged on merit alone. That is increasingly the mood in the country as a whole, and most likely in the Tory Party also.

Tories won't be fooled by Cameron attempting to disguise it as 'a national list of elite candidates to select from - 50% men 50% women.'  Within that list, the better candidates will still be men: the law of averages will ensure that. So, with the each of the  key marginal constituencies competing for the best for itself, there will be still be unwanted women 'remaindered'.  <>I think Cameron has made a blunder adopting this policy of promoting women. I think he realises it is a bit of a gamble himself, and he has tried to insure himself against it blowing up in his face, by avoiding a crude 'all or nothing' confrontation that women-only lists would spark off.

He has a foot in both camps: the classic democratic one and also the feminist, female quota one which is vulnerable to changes of fashion right now.     

Going back to the trousers analogy: to keep a foot in both camps, Cameron has gone on stage weirdly attired: one leg cased in a flare; the other leg wrapped in a classic cut. It makes him look ridiculous, and also unprincipled and cynical. It is also patronising to the voters whom he believes are gullible enough to be taken in.  

To stop this rot going further, we should use all opportunities to bring  the Blaenau Gwent Rebellion into discussions (can you think of a more catchy title that will stuck in public memory?). The media are playing it down, so get it amplified!

We should be quoting the population statistics which show that men are the minority (in fact the largest oppressed minority in this country).

We should be pointing out the dangers of arbitrary quota systems encroaching into Proportional Representation candidate lists.

We should state a preference for local candidates that we know and can question openly.

We should be pointing out that, despite being a minority in Parliament  -due to voters exercising free choice   -  women have had by far the best deal from legislators for decades.

And on top of all that, the operation of the State machinery is dominated by unelected women to a massive extent.  

Girl power rules, and it's not OK.