To allow only women to apply for some parliamentary constituencies is a bad idea that deserves support. Discrimination ought not to be countered by discrimination. Prestigious jobs in public life should be awarded on merit. Local parties should be free to choose. First-rate women have made it in politics anyway, even to the office of prime minister. It would be better to have all-talented-people shortlists, would it not?

These are all serious objections to the idea that shortlists should be reserved for women. And yet David Cameron’s conversion to the idea deserves our support. This newspaper has been tough on the Conservatives because the party has not been hospitable to women candidates. It is only fair to acknowledge that all-women shortlists, despite the objections to them, are a serious attempt to address the problem.

The argument for this bad idea is that it is a minor, and temporary, infringement of meritocracy with evidently just consequences. The Labour Party introduced all-women shortlists 14 years ago because talented women were not winning open selections. Procedures dominated by male trade unionists were sexist, sometimes explicitly and sometimes subtly. The change meant that many more women joined the Labour benches and more women served in Cabinet.

For whatever reason, Conservative associations have preferred male candidates. In the 2005 Parliament, 17 out of 196 Tory MPs were women. If the Conservative Party wins a majority in the next Parliament, there will be, after the current round of selections, 60 Tory women. That is still not enough. All-women shortlists can help and that makes a bad idea a good idea.

In our area we had three successive female MLAs (provincial MPs in Canada)and sex never was an issue.

Yet, their highly socialist party in the last provincial election demanded such affirmative action and demanded a female candidate be nominated. The result was, they lost. Had they run their strong male candidate (who only lost by a few votes in the previous election) they likely would have won.

I think what must be addressed is sociological reality of females in society in which they must juggle professional, political and also domestic roles at the same time. That’s what keeps their numbers down in my esteem.

They are the only party to have provided a female PM.

I agree with Philipa on all points.

Philipa, the chances are we will have fewer MPs in the near future, another huge change to our political system. I hope they will include a fair proportion of women.