There are a lot of rumblings and outright disgust at how British media that purports to be unbiased or even liberal, has chosen to savage Keir Starmer and the Labour Party at every opportunity. Is that accurate? Here's a case in point. It's not outright savaging; it's creating a distorted narrative about Labour that is distinctly false.
The headline of this Guardian article reads "Nearly twice as many men as women standing in May elections in UK", which implies that all parties are at fault. Which is confusing, because it's own table shows that Labour stands out as the only party with near equity (42%) in the local elections, and full equity (50%) in all the other elections.
All other parties have lower figures, some of them dramatically. For example, Reform's figures are slightly above half those of Labour and they have no representation at all in the Mayoral races. The Green Party has 60% women in the Scottish elections, but less than Labour in all the others.
Paragraph 1: Women will be massively underrepresented
on ballot papers across the UK next week, campaigners say, with research
revealing that almost twice as many men as women are standing as candidates
across the local, mayoral and devolved elections.
Fact: It's not the truth about Labour, whose aggregate across all 4 elections is 48% female representation. How is that in any way reflective of 'massive under-representation'? How many women, I wonder, for whom gender equity is a burning issue, would read the headline and the first paragraph and think, "Labour's just as bad as the rest of them, despite all their promises. I'm not voting for them. Hypocrites!"? Or maybe they'd read on a bit.
Paragraph 2: Democracy campaigners say men of all political stripes are likely to dominate local government, with women’s views on issues from social care to bin collections sidelined by the huge gap between the numbers of male and female candidates.
Fact: Except in the Labour Party. Maybe that's in the next paragraph.
Paragraph 3: Across all elections taking place on 7 May, a third of candidates are women and two-thirds are men, with no party achieving gender parity, according to analysis by 50:50 Parliament and Democracy Club shared exclusively with the Guardian.
Fact: Labour has total parity in the Scottish, Mayoral and Senedd elections, and 42% in locals. That gives it an aggregate of 48%. Ever hopeful for a glimmer of truth and balance, let's keep going.
Paragraph 4: In local elections in England, which account for the largest number of candidates out of all elections next Thursday, 34% of candidates are female and no party is fielding an equal number of men and women. In the six mayoral elections taking place, 18% of candidates are women; in the Senedd elections, the figure is 38%; and in the Scottish parliament elections it is 36%.
Fact: As I've pointed out and as the article's own table shows after the above paragraph, Labour has 42% female candidates in the locals. 50% in the mayoral, 50% in the Senedd, 50% in the Scottish parliament. It's only in the fifth paragraph that we get some hard truth.
Reform UK has the smallest proportion of women on ballot papers in the local elections in England, at 23%. Labour is the closest to achieving gender parity, with 42% of its candidates women, followed by the Green party (41%), the Liberal Democrats (33%) and the Conservatives. That's great, but what about the fact that Labour is the only with full equity in all the other elections? The rest of the article has quotes:
Lyanne Nicholl, the CEO of 50:50 Parliament, said: “Women are massively underrepresented on our ballot papers." Except in the Labour Party.
"Penny East, the chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said the analysis showed democracy was not working for women." Except in the Labour Party.
East said online abuse and threats dissuaded women from standing. Except in the Labour Party, where female candidates are willing to fight and push beyond the abuse.
"Men continue
to dominate both locally and nationally, and without proper representation
women’s views and perspectives will once again be sidelined,” Nicholl said. Except within the Labour Party. And for the
record, there are 190 female Labour MPs, which is 46% of the total. It's the
largest female representation in Labour's history.
[Nicholl continued;] "This isn’t about political point scoring, this is about women’s representation and how that has benefits for everyone."
Nicholl may not be trying to score political points. But she also didn't bother to be clear about where progress is being made, and the question is, why? Or maybe she was clear, but the Guardian piece deliberately left it out. In reality, the piece is blatantly biased, which is about political points for somebody. Reform, the Conservatives, the Greens, the Lib Dems? Who knows. It's clearly not for the Labour Party.
The Guardian had a choice of headlines, one of which would have reflected the stats in their own table: "Labour Female Representation in Upcoming Elections Surpasses that of All Other Parties." Or something like that. You get the drift. My question for the Guardian editors and the author of the piece, Lexy Topping, is, why wait until paragraph 5 to establish the plain facts? What's in it for you? Or do you even realise that you set the stage with the headline and the first 4 paragraphs, so the 5th doesn't resonate?
Is it sloppy
journalism or deliberate? Either way, it's unconscionable.
