Letter: You don't need a woman MP to represent women's interests
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Dr Gary Slapper
Sir: After the Labour party's practice of selecting parliamentary candidates from women-only lists was declared unlawful, many senior Labour figures, including the general secretary, Tom Sawyer, reconfirmed their commitment to that form of discrimination. Meanwhile, Tony Blair was telling Singaporean businessmen that he favoured a society where "advancement was by merit" ("Blair is lauded by Far East hard man", 10 January).
It is rare for both sides of an argument to be objectionable, but in this debate (about meritocracy), the Labour Party has achieved such a result. Those who favour women-only candidate lists are being patronising to females and promoting resentment against the successful candidates from such lists. None the less, Mr Blair's idea of a meritocracy within the market system is as misguided as Margaret Thatcher's "property-owning democracy".
While some will advance on their merits according to market dictates, others will not "advance" in Mr Blair's commercial utopia - a society that would be as divided as today's but with the divide between rich and poor "stakeholders" based on merit alone.
Yours faithfully,
Gary Slapper
The Law School
Staffordshire University
Stoke-on-Trent
10 January
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments