At first I was aghast at David Cameron’s stand for all-women shortlists – my knee jerk reaction was that they should be selected on merit alone – but now I think it makes good sense.
The fact is that the present system has let down women candidates as Conservative
associations have shown a preference for males. This is the only way Cameron believes we can increase the number of women sitting in Parliament and make it more representative of the nation. He hopes to have nearly 60 women Tory MPs after the next election – up from 19 now.
In spite of this, I know there is no victory sweeter than a woman candidate beating male rivals for a seat, such as the night Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, was selected. She is against all-women shortlists.
I was there that night and vividly remember how outstanding she was, head and shoulders better than the other two male candidates who addressed what was very much “a blue rinse†Tory gathering.
I remember clearly the fire in her belly as Nadine’s energy, passion and pledge to serve her constituents won her the much deserved votes in the packed hall. She worked the room by walking up and down the aisle and speaking to people personally in the audience, rather than standing static at the front of the room. This is the pic I took of her on the night after her victory was announced.
But the fact remains that Nadine’s success is a minority for Conservative women candidates and I believe we have lots more talented women who need this extra push, like Clare Whelan and Claire Strong who were unsuccessful in the Eastern Region Euro Election, but would have been brilliant MEPs.
While I accept that having all-women shortlists is not fair to the guys, then neither is the fact that women are apparently discriminated against by associations, and it is necessary to modernise Conservatives as we face a new political era.
I would not like men to be discriminated against on a shortlist with women simply to get more women elected because we have many excellent Conservative male prospective candidates too, like James Tumbridge, so this seems the best approach.
What is essential is that our women possess the best skills for a job that is not only a considerable privilege to have, but also involves working long and demanding hours, and often for little thanks.
Crucially, they must also have skin as thick as a rhinoceros.
UPDATE: The Times leader today agrees with my views, you can read it here.
The Guardian too: Read here:
What is essential is that our [MPs] possess the best skills for a job that is not only a considerable privilege to have, but also involves working long and demanding hours, and often for little thanks but a considerable remuneration including expenses.
In fact it’s so demanding that it’s sometimes difficult for them to fit in executive positions that earn them even MORE money. How they find time to write novels on the side amazes me too. And going on jollys abroad.. we have really amazing people in Westminster. Look at Ed Balls, and Mrs Balls, well, all the balls.
Yes, professional politicians, which means they earn their living doing it, not that they do it well.
Looking at Nadine Dorries, Jacqui Smith and Julie Kirkbride etc. I think there’s definitely a case for all male shortlists. Actually no, I think there’s just a case for fewer MPs.
The problem is that the all-women shortlist imposed by the Party is at odds with local democracy. DC says he wants to dismantle the “target” mindset yet he imposes other targets. Look at “Blairs babes” – do you think they have made a positive impact on the Commons?
WW, I like to think our candidates are a cut above the Blair babes. I accept your argument that it is not truly democratic, but then neither is the present system reflective of the population.
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.
Ellee – I do too really and I accept that the mindset of the old boys club had to be broken somehow and that positive discrimination was the only way. But that happened and I’m generally unhappy with the selection procedure. It favours ‘professional politicians’ – those that are the parties creatures that fight for seats in areas they have no affiliation with whatsoever. I think that should change. Actually I fear we will have no real parliament at all if the Lisbon treaty goes ahead.
Why are the Conservatives worried about being accused of discrimination against women ?
They are the only party to have provided a female PM.
I agree with Philipa on all points.
You know, I have never believed that gender bias keeps women from office, any more than ethnicity keeps a worthy candidate from office.
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.
He should make sure women are there, but only on merit.
I wish that gender didn’t need to be even considered as a factor for this sort of thing; sadly, not the way it is. Short list isn’t ideal, but the alternative is even worse.
I think it takes a special type of woman to make headway in a male dominated political world. They have to get their male colleagues on side with them and also the electorate.
could a woman actually do the job as well as a man…. I dont think so, because they have far more ties and responsibilities at home
The Times editorial today agrees with my thinking that although this is a flawed decision, it is necessary. This is what it says:
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.