<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hughes4Tokenism?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/</link>
	<description>"crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger" - Alex Wilcock</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:54:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gareth</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/#comment-1074</link>
		<dc:creator>Gareth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:16:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/#comment-1074</guid>
		<description>I wouldn't believe anything Peter Pigeon says.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wouldn&#8217;t believe anything Peter Pigeon says.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/#comment-1073</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:57:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/#comment-1073</guid>
		<description>Hold up a moment there!  The only 'eye witness' report we have is from Mark Valladares who does not say that Chris came out for BME only short lists - he said that Simon did and that Chris 'pandered to it' which could mean anything.

Each of the candidates has set out there views on your excellent 'Reflecting Britain' website and Chis's position is a long way from what is now being suggested.

On the other hand if I read Ming's statement correctly:

http://pigeon-post.blogspot.com/2006/02/ming-at-emetf-hustings-updated.html

He is suggesting that the party should give money to women and BME candidates to help them win selection contests.  This opens up another can of worms. Will the party also give funds to poor male candidates?  Will BME women candidate get double?  How much money do you give particualr candidates to 'even up' the process?  Is lack of money really the issue when expenditure in selection contests is so stricty controlled anyway?

Peter Pigeon says that 'reading round the blogs' it appears that Ming has won this one and the others have lost.  Yet this seems to all be based on one comment from Mark Valladares which is open to wide interpretation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hold up a moment there!  The only &#8216;eye witness&#8217; report we have is from Mark Valladares who does not say that Chris came out for BME only short lists - he said that Simon did and that Chris &#8216;pandered to it&#8217; which could mean anything.</p>
<p>Each of the candidates has set out there views on your excellent &#8216;Reflecting Britain&#8217; website and Chis&#8217;s position is a long way from what is now being suggested.</p>
<p>On the other hand if I read Ming&#8217;s statement correctly:</p>
<p><a href="http://pigeon-post.blogspot.com/2006/02/ming-at-emetf-hustings-updated.html" rel="nofollow">http://pigeon-post.blogspot.com/2006/02/ming-at-emetf-hustings-updated.html</a></p>
<p>He is suggesting that the party should give money to women and BME candidates to help them win selection contests.  This opens up another can of worms. Will the party also give funds to poor male candidates?  Will BME women candidate get double?  How much money do you give particualr candidates to &#8216;even up&#8217; the process?  Is lack of money really the issue when expenditure in selection contests is so stricty controlled anyway?</p>
<p>Peter Pigeon says that &#8216;reading round the blogs&#8217; it appears that Ming has won this one and the others have lost.  Yet this seems to all be based on one comment from Mark Valladares which is open to wide interpretation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob F</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/#comment-1071</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob F</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/#comment-1071</guid>
		<description>I note that the chairman of the hustings was more impressed with Simon, and has written a glowing note of support on his blog (not co-ordinated in any way by me)

http://www.simonhughesforleader.com/wordpress/?p=36#comment-89</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I note that the chairman of the hustings was more impressed with Simon, and has written a glowing note of support on his blog (not co-ordinated in any way by me)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.simonhughesforleader.com/wordpress/?p=36#comment-89" rel="nofollow">http://www.simonhughesforleader.com/wordpress/?p=36#comment-89</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/#comment-1062</link>
		<dc:creator>Will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:55:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/#comment-1062</guid>
		<description>...and when TB/GB is away, which of the deputy leaders would do PMQs? Indeed, if there had been two last month, which would have immediatly become acting leader of the parliamentary party? This comes straight from the same box of cobblers as his deputy presidents.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;and when TB/GB is away, which of the deputy leaders would do PMQs? Indeed, if there had been two last month, which would have immediatly become acting leader of the parliamentary party? This comes straight from the same box of cobblers as his deputy presidents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reflecting Britain</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/#comment-1060</link>
		<dc:creator>Reflecting Britain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/15/hughes4tokenism/#comment-1060</guid>
		<description>[...] In the blogosphere, Mark Valladares has given his reaction, as have Peter Pigeon, Colin Ross and James Graham.  Posted in around the blogs, update &#124; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In the blogosphere, Mark Valladares has given his reaction, as have Peter Pigeon, Colin Ross and James Graham.  Posted in around the blogs, update | [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
