More than half of newly vacated seats will be fought on All Women Shortlists

Don't worry Julian.
When you get into the next Labour cabinet you could have a gender change to meet quota requirements for cross-gender representation.
That'll be in 2024 though.

While I completely understand the point of view that all women shortlists are considered a violation of fairness, i think that if you recognise the fact that there are barriers to womens' entry to politics they're actually a good method towards equality. Barriers such as the time bind women suffer from juggling childcare (which lets face it, is still the major responsibility of women) with paid work, as well as a political campaign would be a strain for anyone, as men often have less responsibility in the care area i think its less of an issue for them and they can invest more time into politics. The media is continually telling young girls politics is a mans world- always commenting on what a female politician is wearing, her marital status, how pretty she is- continually undermining her presence in politics.When was the last time you read an article that was like this on a man- there would be a hell of a lot to write about thats for sure. Not to mention the fact that Political parties themselves are a huge barrier because of their traditionally masculine culture, very often the commitees who select candidates are all men... who are likely to select men! the hierarchy and inner circles are very slow to change (As Caroline 'window dressing' Flint pointed out). All parties are rhetorically comitted to more women, but its only through active measures like this it will become a reality (see sweden, the parity law in france and quotas in Belgium.) The next issue to address is the fact that this may help women but we're not tackling other minorities that should be represented..!

Why?
No, really why?

Excellent, truely brilliant and something to be proud of.

So what Labour is saying is that in virtually every case at the next general election, the women that are PPCs are not there through merit, they are not there because they are the best person for the job, but they are there because Labour put them there.

You go girls! Show the electorate what it is like when you're placed in a job rather than earning it. A 64k a year job for all those women who go into politics is guaranteed because Labour have decided that it isn't about the person who best serves the electorate, no no, it is better to have a woman there than a man to make sure we're all politically correct.

In the real world women are looking at this with the same contempt that the rest of the electorate is looking at it. Get it through to those thick skulls for a nanosecond, you can not socially engineer a society, you can not dictate what people think and you certainly can't lower female candidates to the position of knowing that they only got their job because they were not put up against any men in the process of getting nominated.

For the love of all that is holy, please get it together. It may not be the best election for Labour, in fact it may be the worst result for them in the entire 110 year history by the time we go to the polls, but at least fight on the basis of best person for the job rather than trying to engineer the situation. I mean come on, safe seats for female candidates. That isn't democracy, that is putting women into the Parliament because you want it, not the electorate. This is the first time I've said this, and hopefully the last, but with this particular venture I hope Labour fall on their arse and fail. I hope that all those safe seats let you down and democracy wins through.

"Mind you, there is not much sign of gender parity in the Cabinet. "


Perhaps then Julian we could get some of the cabinet to don drag? Jack Straw in twin set and pearls, Alan Johnson in a blond wig and off-the-shoulder ball gown, Mandeslon with a tiara to suit his Royal status........if only Pur-nell was still there, what a sight in mini-skirt and thigh boots. Not in the cabinet, but Woolas could loan the nail varnish.......

The only way? The Tory 'open primary' system looks likely to do the trick...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6739409.ece

I'd rather see local members choose whoever they think is the best candidate, regardless of gender, age, race or religion.

You encourage and mentor capable women to stand - much like the Conservatives have with Women2Win. You then ensure a 50/50 split in the final selection round, and leave it up to the members to decide (or hold an open primary).

This is how the Conservatives managed to get about 50% of their 'vacant' seats (ie seats which are nominally Conservative where the Conservative MP is standing down or doesn't exist) filled with women candidates like:
Harriet Baldwin, Priti Patel, Esther McVey, Sarah Wollaston, Laura Sandys, Karen Bradley, Annunziata Rees-Mogg, Maggie Throup, Penny Mordaunt, Andrea Leadsom, Helen Grant, Pauline Latham and Angie Bray.

And the marginals (notional majority of 5% for the Tories to overturn) there's no shortage of women either:
Susan Williams, Julia Mulligan, Anne-Marie Morris, Brenda Porter, Joanne Cash, Flick Drummond, Mary MacLeod, Philippa Stroud, Heather Wheeler, Lorraine Fulbrook, Deirdre Alden, Anna Soubry, Karen Lumley, Louise Bagshawe, Margot James, Amber Rudd, Nicky Morgan, Charlotte Leslie, Caroline Righton, Caroline Nokes, Maria Hutchings, and Jane Ellison.

That way you end up with capable women in the House who can serve round a Cabinet table. Perhaps this is why the only women in Brown's cabinet are Harriet Harman (who he can't sack), Yvette Cooper (wife of his protege Ed Balls), and Baroness Royall. Meanwhile David Cameron has Caroline Spelman, Theresa May, Cheryl Gillan, Theresa Villiers, Baroness Warsi, and Baroness Neville-Jones.

You just couldn't make it up.
Who cares whether or not the person is suitable for the job or the best person to represent their constituents, just as long as the diversity quotas are satisfied.
Carry on like this and 44 will be about the sum total of Labour MP's in parliament after the next election, but nearly half will be women, so that's alright !!!

Alex, your article is very interesting in what it leaves out. For example, information about where, i.e. which regions, All Women Shorlists are featuring in the selection processes and the winnability of the seats. A more complete analysis would probably paint a different picture. My understanding is that the North East party (where Durham North East is) is, at last, tackling the under-representation of women Labour MPs but others, e.g. Scotland (where Airdrie & Shotts is), are being woefully spineless about taking the issues head on.

Your comment about '..... Ardrie & Shotts ... battling against the party imposing AWS on their selection process' fails to recognise that the NEC made the decision that this seat shoudl be AWS in Nov 2007, re-affirmed that decision in March 2008 with the party officials eventually getting around to starting the process as an AWS earlier this year only to suspend it for 'timetable slippage' following the close of expressions of interest i.e. 3 weeks in to the process. That was now 5 months ago. Maybe the party hierarchy is so spineless that its hoping that there'll be a general election announced before they start the process again at which point party rules might mean anything goes. Keep an eye on the number of 'safe' seats coming up in Scotland and the number which are AWS. The record is dreadful and it appears the national and Scottish party is (and always has been) too weak to apply its own policies in the face of dogged self-interest and dirty tricks.

This does not trouble me at all. It's only a little over half and if men get the rest it's not exactly a big deal, in any case women are under-represented in Parliament so good luck to them.

Are there any non-Oxbridge graduate shortlists?

What happened to to the quaint old idea that MP's were there to represent their constituents, not fill some hare-brained diversity quota? Yet another example of NuLab's condescending contempt for the electorate - an electorate which will soon turn finally off the life-support system of Brown's Last Gasp Gang.

I give thanks that Brown is on holiday leaving Harman to run riot on a daily basis.

My MP is Glenda Jackson. She does a good job. I could care less what her gender is.

Disgraceful discrimination.

Quite so.

The astonishing thing, to my mind, is that New Labour should contemplate this kind of tinkering when they are on the brink of an electoral abyss. There will be no end of bickering and blood-letting after the election in any case but to add willfully to the ill-feeling with inevitable accusations that individual women candidates weren't up to the job of getting elected seems barmy.

If I were a woman and interested in becoming a Labour MP (neither is likely) I would be sitting this one out.

"...but how else do we get more women into poltics?"

Answer: encourage them to stand for other parties.

QED

Can someone explain to me how all-women shortlists don't discriminate against men?

Imposing female Labour candidates will make very little difference to the number of women in Parliament since none of them are going to win anyway.

And this is supposed to reassure us?

Most of the women labelled "Blair's Babes" were some of the most spineless, supine and acquiescent MPs ever admitted to the Commons. I didn't notice parliament becoming less adversarial or civilised because of their presence, although I did see the "Babes" gang together to help their hero Tony Blair push through legislation that might not have made it to the statute book otherwise, on occasions too numerous to mention.

What we want are honest, intelligent, compassionate, capable independently minded MPs who will represent the interests of their constituents before political affiliation to a party, let alone to a temporary administration of odd-bods. It doesn't matter if they are men and women as long as they are capable and conscientious.

So your view is "don't let anyone complain about all women short lists, and we can pretend that every one supports them".

I wouldn't take part in a sexist process that put people at a disadvantage just by virtue of them having no balls vs no womb, and I have absolutely no respect (in fact contempt) for anyone who would (women on all women short lists included).

Spot on Jon.

What is it with Labour at the moment and the obsession with quotas? Quotas and positive discrimination are not socialist. It is a twisted brand of socialism, lost in its own meaning, dislocated from its original purpose.

This is not the way to raise the talent levels in the PLP.

"Second rate scum"??? How did phrase like that make it through moderation?

Surely you want the best candidate. All women short lists short change the constituents who may be denied the opportunity of a better candidate purely on the basis of gender. Speaking as a voter I want my mp to be the best possible person for the job. All this does is ensure that you have the best possible woman for the job.

Also this is surely discriminatory against other underrepresented groups in parliament such as the disabled, blacks, asians etc. Speaking as a voter I will never vote for a candidate who has been selected by such a discriminatory method even if they are from the party I would want to vote for.

How do we get more blacks into politics? more asians? more disabled? more gingers? more blind? more deaf? more terminally ill? more gays? First explain *why* you want more...

Apparently the white male is over represented in parliament (whatever that means) but this doesn't seem to do much for white males on the street feeling unrepresented and disenfranchised, nor for their enthusiasm for voting.

If labour selection panels are sexist (so choosing on gender not merit) string them up - they are the wrong people for the job.

If female potential candidates are too timid to compete with men to even be candidates then god help them in parliament when the whips get hold of them.

If a women is pathetic they they have no place in politics, if she isn't then they should refused to stand on all women shortlists.

Any woman agreeing to go on an all woman short list is second rate scum as far as I am concerned and not fit to stand for any public office.

Correct it is not a perfect world but then we are not all born equal.

Berlusconi once claimed that right-wing female politicians are better looking than their left-wing counterparts.

In a perfect world we would not have AWS. We do not live in a perfect world, and I believe that for the time being AWS is needed. I accept it is frustrating, but how else do we get more women into poltics?

Mind you, there is not much sign of gender parity in the Cabinet.

Good news! Too often selections are dominated by men, if we have a representative democracy surely we should have a truly representative parliament.

The Tories 'A' list approach failed, the only way to get more women into parliament is by having all-women short lists.

"I have to wonder at this example of NuLabour nonsense and hope that we will be able to move to a more sensible socialist model after we lose the next election"


Absolutely right, Jon.

Candidates should only be considered on merit not gender, shoe size nor whether they can play golf.
Why can people not see that this is so very wrong?

Is this not just a little bit pathetic? A bit like having "Womans Hour" on BBC. A bit like a sop for the little ladies.

Women should have to be inclusive like the rest of us and having a special privilege does not enhance their image; rather the opposite.

If we are concerned about male domination, then let us be less male dominant but to exclude male competition just encourages the less gifted to squeeze through.

I have to wonder at this example of NuLabour nonsense and hope that we will be able to move to a more sensible socialist model after we lose the next election.

Just so long as there are no Blears, Follett, Flint manque' amongst them....

It should be who would do the best most honest job, not what their sex is.

Surely this is not the answer? Imposing women candidates assumes that women can't be good at anything unless you take the male 'competition' out entirely. It's slightly demeaning.