Women only shortlists

Chris Heathcote

I totally share David Cameron's frustration. I checked the internet on Monday morning to descover that three rock-solid safe tory seats had selected their candidates over the weekend and all three were white, middle-aged, middle classed men, GPs, doctors, bankers.

The party needs a broader basis of MPs if it is to be successful. I'm not interested in packing the place with token gestures, but clearly the 50:50 male:female shortlists already being used are not enough.

Sean Haffey

The answer is for the constituency organisations to actively encourage and recruit women. I know a number of women who would make great PPCs (e.g. CFO of a very well known multi-national) who uniformly say "The Conservative Party doesn't want me." If we tried, we could get excellent female candidates like those, rather than worthy but 2nd tier women who will feel (sometimes rightly) that they won because they were a woman.

John Backhouse

Well, first think of the Labour party, if you can bear it.
Before AWSL: Barbara Castle, Betty Boothroyd, Gwyneth Dunwoody.
After AWSL: Jacqui Smith, Yvette Cooper, Patricia Hewitt.
Another Labour failure and I hope it's not going to be YET another one repeated by Dave and his mates.

Charles Flaccidwidger

No, no, no. Best candidate for the job whether they be man or woman. Positive discrimination is still just that - discrimination.

C'mon Dave, you're better than this.

Bumpkin

It looks like we are adopting a dictatorial system of politics.
Locals can no longer select their own candidates. Why don't we remove candidate names from the ballot papers and simply have voters elect whichever dictator they prefer? Constituencies can then have whichever Londoner the dictator chooses to "represent" them.

G Butler.

I believe whole heartedly in meritocracy.
However, I do understand the frustration from Cameron that there has not been a greater advance in the number of women candidates selected in winnable seats. If the Tories win a minimum of 330 seats at the next election, women will only account for about 60 seats.

Of course parties cannot engineer events to hit exact targets, but surely having women make up just 18% of the next parliamentary group is not good enough.

Verity

Oh, dear God! Well, he is Harriet Harman's cousin so lunacy clearly runs in the family, but what makes him think women want more women in Parliament? Have women actually written him letters saying, "Hey, Dave! I'm not too perturbed by the failed economy or the breakdown of law and order and social cohesion in the country. I can live with the threat from the Islamics, with all their mosques and paraphenalia, embedded in our cities. But what really worries the hell out of me is, there aren't enough women in Parliament! The Government isn't bossy enough, so we must redress this lack by flooding the HoC with pushy, bossy women like Harriet Harman."

I'm beginning to think he is not just inadequate, but criminally insane.

John Bracewell

Merit should be the only criterion for selection. Anything else means the people get substandard goods. If women apply and are good enough to be selected as a PPC then great.

Ben Stevenson

How can we trust David Cameron when he says he plans to give more control over local issues to local people (e.g. local referendums), if, on issues that are in his hands, he seems intent on making decisions centrally?

Roy Simpson

I am dismayed that the Conservatives are considering women only shortlists. As someone said recently, positive discrimination is still discrimination.

The Tories should be leading the way in introducing parliamentary democracy, first of all by selecting and re-selecting all candidates using closed primaries. In addition to the constituency membership, non -members who have previously registered as Conservative supporters should also be allowed to take part. The party leadership at Westminster should have no say or influence in this process, which at a stroke would enable members of parliament to vote with their conscience, thereby eliminating any fear of deselection threats from the leadership.

Such a system would be a start of truly representative democracy.

Robert Eve

Positive discrimination sucks!!

DavidDP

The basis for central control in this case appears to be the, not entirely unreasonable, issue where constituencies have not selected a candidate by January 2010, in which case CCHQ will be able to act as if there was a by-election. Given the relatively short time left till an election by that point, one can't say that the constituencies haven't had time to get their acts together.

egh

"- and when she was good, she was very, very, good; and when she was bad she was horrid."

Yet another marxist-style -ism taking control of the electorate! I'm in terrible trouble for refusing to be either marxist or feminist: but continue to believe there's nothing on earth that makes women superior to men, or deserving of positions they have not earned or for which they are unqualified.

In any case, as some here have already observed - why aren't the electorate choosing their own candidates? No wonder DC's not committing to a yes/no referendum - he wishes no power to the people at all! [Come to think of it ... that too is a very female sort of stance; women tend to be authoritarian, and to think their intrinsic 'people skills' allow them to manipulate everyone. Pah.]

DavidDP

"Best candidate for the job whether they be man or woman"

What happens if the person being chosen isn't the best candidate for the job but just the best male available?

Millpoint

Let us be clear, the recent selections were made using the Open Primary mechanism which means that any elector in the constituency can attend. These are not closed meetings of Party members. Therefore the decisions have a broader legitimacy that must be respected. Otherwise the Conservative selection process is going to resemble EU referenda: repeatedly gerrymandered so as to get the "right" results.
I don't know who Sean Haffey's female friends are talking to in the Party but I am aware of numerous women who have been very actively courted by senior members of the Party to stand: most of them decided that they were simply unwilling to make the family/career sacrifice or to accept the media intrusion on their lives.
I fear this proposal will cause a major crisis in the voluntary party.

Vulture

This is a curious move by the leader of the party which produced Britain's first woman PM. Has Dave asked Mags what she thinks of AWSLs? or Anne Widdecombe? Or Chloe Smith, who won the Tories' first by-election in an age? Quality will out, without Dave's patronising help. It's also a completely un-Conservative idea, but we know that Dave is no Conservative, don't we? He's just a PR man with a face like melting cheese.

TrevorsDen

The refuseniks need to think long and hard.

The Tory party does need more women. It is under represented in key parts of the community. It needs to respond.

And the 'pick the best candidate' brigade should just realise how disingenuous their remarks are.

Its the associations which have given us the pea brains who have abused expenses - so they are very far from perfect. No doubt Witney thought they were right to pick Shaun Woodward. Still they did redeem themselves.

Oh and whilst its true we produced the first woman PM - she only stood because the men were wimps and before her we had Heath and Home; say no more.

DavidDP

"Quality will out"

Are you sure? There doesn't appear to be any shortage of women applying, yet few are eing chosen. Does it seem likely that there is a glut of poorly qualified women applying compared to men?

Paul Huxley

The best thing Cameron could do is enforce Open Primaries on all vacant positions. Then, whether the result be 50% or 5% female, the people have chosen and there can be no complaints.

Ian Walker

I understand Cameron's frustration, but interventionism isn't the answer - 12 years of Labour has told us that.

Why not rely on market forces - there's nothing to stop MPs being payed a top-up bursary for being from an underrepresented group. Say that women MPs will receive an extra £10,000 salary, and more high-quality candidates will be tempted to apply, across all parties and the whole house. Trial-and-error would eventually find the point where the salary bonus achieved equal representation.

He only needs to look across the chamber to the Labour front bench to see why this is wrong.

DavidDP

"most of them decided that they were simply unwilling to make the family/career sacrifice or to accept the media intrusion on their lives"

If this is true, you'd need to explain why women find this more of a problem than men seem to.

John Bracewell

Cameron appears to be getting into 'heir to Blair' territory again. It does him and his team no favours to be associated with ideas of the former PM most Conservatives despise.

DavidDP

Still , this will never happen. The constituencies will get their act together and get candidates in place by the New Year. Good threat really to those dragging their feet.

DavidDP

"Why not rely on market forces - there's nothing to stop MPs being payed a top-up bursary for being from an underrepresented group. Say that women MPs will receive an extra £10,000 salary,"

Even if Cameron could do that, this would only solve a problem of applications, which isn't really at issue at all as I don't believe there is a shortage of female applicants. It wouldn't do anything to address the fact that they aren't chosen by the constituency.

Tiberius

Pete; tell me I'm wrong if you dare, but didn't you put that headline up over the photo just to enrage Verity?

I don't like positive discrimination in any scenario, but I dislike even more the Tory party being open to jibes from the Left that it is not representative of the country's populace, and so by implication not right for government.

Tony

Are the Conservatives now NuNuLab ?
When will the politicians realise how fed up the electorate are with all this PC tinkering ?

Neil McEvoy

So the stuff about localism is lies.

Peter From Maidstone

The idea that there must be a similar proportion of women MPs as are represented in the general population is just wrong. Why should gender be the only category that we must engineer parity in regard to. Why not the same proportion of football fans, of those who like rambling, of Christians - by each denomination, of hair colour, of size of feet etc etc. It is ridiculous.

Our representatives should not be selected just because they are like us. We don't elect clones. They should represent the members of the constituency not elements of the constituency.

Open primaries are the way forward, then all those who care about who might represent them will choose who might represent them. But arbitrary lists according to a predetermined criteria are deeply anti-democratic.

strapworld

People are slowly coming round to realise that Cameron, perhaps, is not what it said on the can!

Did you read what Kenneth Clarke did for the reputation of this shadow cabinet yesterday? Courtesy of QUENTIN-LETTS!

I am sure small business owners and the CBI will be mortified by this shocking performance.

Clarke was `speaking at the dispatch box about the burden of over-regulation on British business.

He was saying that the Conservative party wanted to reduce this burden.

Whereupon Rob Marris (Lab, Wolverhampton SW) asked a simple question: 'Can the Right Hon Gentleman name three regulations he would dismantle?'

What a low trick! The dirty dog! Wanting some policy detail, indeed. By God, this was the act of a cur. Or you could say, well played, Marris-crafty work.

Shrewd to suspect that Ken might be chancing it. Mr Clarke returned to the despatch box slowly, with a rueful smile. He pinkened. He admitted that when he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and people came to him with protests about European over-regulation, he would frequently ask them to name individual regulations which they would scrap. It had normally torpedoed them. Now the same question had been put to him, with the same result. 'He has defeated me,' Mr Clarke finally conceded, genially.

Remember this is the man that supported the Maestricht Treaty but had not read it!

Cameron and his team are unraveling. They have got to try harder if they want to win.

Perhaps the truth is, they dont?

John Bracewell

DavidDP
Your question is incomplete.
Why is the best male available chosen?
Are you accusing the local parties of bias? even though they choose the best candidate available for the local area they know best?
If it is male bias then you need to put forward some ideas of how local selection panels can be changed so that they do not choose what they believe is the best candidate. Will this be to force local selection panels to be all women? Do you really think a local selection panel will not want the candidate which is most likely to win the seat for the party?

Anna

Women only shortlists are an appalling idea. They're the reason that we have so-called female role models (in itself, a patronising concept) like Harriet Harpie and Jacqui 'porno' Smith.

Cameron: Provide me with some actual evidence that women of equivalent competence are being systematically overlookeded. Otherwise, kindly drop the patronising attitude.

Verity's Bodega

Trevorsden – “underrepresented”, the favourite word of local government diversity enforcers and corporate “human resources” ethnic coordinators. It is a completely illegitimate construct, because the service these people, ppcs, would be called upon to perform, if they win, is to benefit of the electorate with good governance, not to benefit their particular group.

You say “the Tory Party does need more women” … but you don’t say why. What does being a woman have to do with able governance?

David DP, yes, probably it does. Local parties want the Conservatives to win the election. To this end they try very hard to choose the very best of the candidates available. Forcing them to choose a second rate woman over a first rate man produces only one thing: the Labour Party.

Ian Walker – Words fail …

TrevorsDen

"that too is a very female sort of stance; women tend to be authoritarian, "

thank you 'egh'

I think you have just proved Cameron's point. It's dopey concepts like this that the conservatives need to eradicate.

I will keep polite - and not say what I think of you.

Verity

Wot Anna said. Cameron is a patronising jerk who thinks women should be given a little pat on the head and some candidates of their very own.

What a creep.

Hawkeye

OK - don't get mad at me for asking this, it is a serious question. Honestly.

Do enough women want to stand as PPCs?

I honestly don't know. Are there enough women putting themselves forward to fill (say) 50% of all seats? Is it something (like being car mechanics or physicists) that most women seem to have no interest in?

What I'm getting at here is that if the mix of people applying to be PPCs is (say) 90/10 men/women then is a 50/50 men/women outcome the right answer?

Should the final mix of PPCs being put forward represent a snapshot of the population or of those that apply to be PPCs?

Is "Call me Dave" trying to solve the wrong problem?

Discuss.....

Local Local

With 700 men and 300 women on the approved list and about 25 seats possibly up for grabs, this could result in a severe depletion of troops for the General Election.

Those male candidates who end up snubbed by this will simply not work for the party to deliver victory. Why should they?

There will be no target seats in 2014/5. There may be a dozen or so retirements, but who is to say the same approach will not be taken with those seats?

All those invited to apply three months ago will be feeling cheated and may well go public with their feelings. After all, they hardly have a track record of loyalty and service to the Tory party, do they?

I feel a long season in the Alps coming on myself, back about 7 May next year.

PD

Urgh, ridiculous. The answer is to dismantle the existing discriminatory structures,(*) not create new ones.

(*) If indeed they do exist. Why is it these people simply assume that as many able/competent women as men wish to be MPs? Maybe they simply don't -- especially in the current climate.

Publius

Where was it that Labour tried this trick? Rhondda? And they lost a safe Labour seat as a result. Why? Because people resent being told by smug metropolitans: This is who you shall vote for.

And as Peter from Maidstone says, if women, then why not every other splinter and sub-splinter in the madhouse of identity politics.

DavidDP

"Your question is incomplete."

Not sure it is.

"Why is the best male available chosen? Are you accusing the local parties of bias? even though they choose the best candidate available for the local area they know best?"

Point being though that they aren't choosing the best candidate, but the best male candidate.

"If it is male bias then you need to put forward some ideas of how local selection panels can be changed so that they do not choose what they believe is the best candidate."

No, it's to ensure that the best candidate is chosen, which is in all our interests, I'd have thought.

"Will this be to force local selection panels to be all women?"

I don't know. It's not my preference, ceratinly. But if there is little progress made, then.......I'd prefer something to help get the best in Parliament, rather than shrug and settle for second raters.

"Do you really think a local selection panel will not want the candidate which is most likely to win the seat for the party?"

But the point is that they aren't choosing the candidate most likely to win, but the male candidate. The idea that there is no bias because all constituencies want the best is nice, but it isn't true. The point about bias is that it affects the judgement so that, in this case, a woman wouldn't be cosidered as ever being the best, even though she might be.

Publius

Perhaps we can apply the same rule to brain surgeons and muck spreaders too. Dear God! All this is such fatuous nonsense!

Chris Rose

Let women face men on equal terms in primaries and caucases. By all means make sure women are getting to the final stage of selection so that they feature in the primary, but then leave the choice to the people.

There's no shortage of women turning up to vote in caucases and there is no reason to believe that they don't vote in primaries. So let the people decide.

The last thing we want is a repeat of the Blair Babes.

Ben Elford

To have this resurface now is disappointing. Surely the past twelve years have demonstrated that one of the underlying reasons for government incompetence has been the appointment of so many token women and so-called ethnics to positions to which they've not been suited. Do we really have to expect more of the same kind of dumb thinking from the Conservatives?

Members of Parliament are elected to represent all of their constituents. If it is argued that men can't represent women, then equally, women can't represent men.

If the Conservative Party were to impose, centrally, an all-female (or indeed an all-something else) shortlist in my own constituency, they would give me a single very powerful reason for not voting for their candidate.

John Bracewell

Hawkeye: My twopenny worth....
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
The most equitable and correct situation is if the ratio of men/women applicants is reflected in the men/women ratio of PPCs.
This is provided that we think men and women are equally suited to the job (no reason why not).
I do not think there will be anywhere near a 50/50 split of male/female applicants but some reliable statistics on applicants and winning candidates (PPCs) would be most illuminating.

Peter From Maidstone

DavidDP, you seem to be basing your assumption that the best candidates are systematically not being chosen is simply that there are not 50% women candidates. This makes no sense at all. Unless you have evidence that women in a reasonably large proportion of cases are in fact the best candidates and have been overlooked in favour of a less competent male candidate then you have no argument at all.

Local selection panels may not be choosing according to your criteria but your criteria seems fatally flawed. Not least because MPs are to represent all constituents in parliament, not be members and representatives of a particular group within the constituency.

John Bracewell

Your question is incomplete."

I am sure it is.

"Why is the best male available chosen? Are you accusing the local parties of bias? even though they choose the best candidate available for the local area they know best?"
Point being though that they aren't choosing the best candidate, but the best male candidate.

That is your opinion not backed up by fact.

"If it is male bias then you need to put forward some ideas of how local selection panels can be changed so that they do not choose what they believe is the best candidate."
No, it's to ensure that the best candidate is chosen, which is in all our interests, I'd have thought.

How do you know that is not the case, your bias again is it?

"Will this be to force local selection panels to be all women?"
I don't know. It's not my preference, ceratinly. But if there is little progress made, then.......I'd prefer something to help get the best in Parliament, rather than shrug and settle for second raters.

By all women selection lists you are favouring second raters because they may not be best for the job.

"Do you really think a local selection panel will not want the candidate which is most likely to win the seat for the party?"
But the point is that they aren't choosing the candidate most likely to win, but the male candidate.
Your opinion again, how do you know?

The idea that there is no bias because all constituencies want the best is nice, but it isn't true. The point about bias is that it affects the judgement so that, in this case, a woman wouldn't be cosidered as ever being the best, even though she might be.

So, you are saying a local selection panel would rather see a lost seat than pick what in their opinion is the best candidate! Poppycock.

Dorothy Wilson

I have considerable experience of working with people in career development situations and know how complex this kind of situation is. It involves issues ranging from antropology to the way in which certain types of personality will have a preference for certain types of job.

I also know that selection processes designed to promote equal opportunities often have a perverse effect. They lead to tick box procedures that rule out the talented and indivualistic and result in the recruitment of the mediocre.

The dangers inherent in all women short-lists is that we'll end up with the equivalent of a mix of Mrs Dromeys and Blair babes. So before going that route DC should think seriously about the damage they have done to the standing of parliament.

Whilst DC's speech appears to be aimed at the next election, perhaps we should be taking a longer term view and look at the skills and competencies required of an MP so that we can instigate some proper development for aspiring women MPs.

Perhaps we should also be looking at a statement of the duties, responsibilities and accountabilities of MPs - not a job description because that takes away the element of public service. The local constituency people would then at least have something objective to measure candidates against.

In odd moments I've given a little thought to such a statement. It is much harder to think through it may at first appear!

TomTom

The Conservative Party needs more Northerners and fewer Barristers; it should draw up All-Northerner Shortlists male and female to redress the Southern Barrister Bias in the Conservative Party

David Ossitt

He has simply lost the plot; first local constituencies must have the right to chose on merit their own candidates.

Merit should be the only criteria; to have a women only shortlists is only marginally better than having shortlists for blacks, whites, Asians, Muslims, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, lesbians or even sodomites.

What is needed is a parliament of talented intelligent free thinking individuals.

What we do not need is a parliament built on exclusion, because the only way you can have women only shortlists or any other shortlist is by excluding others, it is quite simply wrong.

oldtimer

This is a rubbish idea. If I was in a constituency lumbered with a candidate selected from a women only list for the party I favoured I think I would spoil my ballot paper in protest - for the first time in 50+ years of voting in elections.

DavidDP

"DavidDP, you seem to be basing your assumption that the best candidates are systematically not being chosen is simply that there are not 50% women candidates. This makes no sense at all."

Yes, it doesn't. Hence I've not mentioned "50%", so I don't know where you've got that from.

"Local selection panels may not be choosing according to your criteria but your criteria seems fatally flawed."

What, that the best candidate shoudl be picked? That's the only criteria that I've put forward. How is that flawed?

"I am sure it is."

Why?

"By all women selection lists you are favouring second raters because they may not be best for the job."

As I noted, AWS isn't my preference.

"So, you are saying a local selection panel would rather see a lost seat than pick what in their opinion is the best candidate! Poppycock."

If they are baised, then they will refuse to consider that the female candidate is the best one, hence they will choose the male alternative who they think is better, but is not, in fact.

There's a mixture of personal anecdote here, as well as the statistical observation which, if not envidence of bias, would suggest that the Conservative Party is not at all atractive to women candidates of sufficiently high calibre. Now, that may be the case, but that's hardly better.

Ian Walker

DavidDP: "Even if Cameron could do that, this would only solve a problem of applications, which isn't really at issue at all as I don't believe there is a shortage of female applicants. It wouldn't do anything to address the fact that they aren't chosen by the constituency"

The idea is not to attract more female applicants, but higher quality ones. The local businesswomen, headteachers, doctors; these are the people who need to be convinced to apply. Money is a crude and blunt motivator, but it has the advantage of definitely working and being quantifiable.

Verity's Bodega: In the face of your stunning arguments against my idea, I can only cower in miserable supplication.

DavidDP

"The idea is not to attract more female applicants, but higher quality ones. "

Fine (assuming the ones we have already aren't high quality, which is worrying in itself as said), but that still doesn't address the issue of bias in the eventual selection.

Verity

I know! Why doesn't Dave get Samantha to stand! To set an example! Yes, we know she is already successful in her chosen field and is apparently a good businesswoman, but Dave thinks women are discriminated against, so she should tear herself away from what she has chosen to do, and done with some success, and run for Parliament!! Pump the politically correct numbers up for Blair Lite!

Do George Osborne and all those people have wives? Why don't they get them to run for Parliament! Couldn't William Hague get Fiona to abandon her successful career and put herself forward to stand for a seat? To show the Tories are "inclusive"?

Does David Cameron sincerely believe there is a great wealth of competent women out there who are dying to stand for Parliament but are too timid to do so?

I am honestly at a loss as to where this man's head is. Haven't we had enough of confused, fuzzy, self-seeking thinking in Downing Street?

John Bracewell

DavidDP:
Your last comment seems to suggest you have a personal story about a constituency that in your opinion chose an inferior male candidate over a superior female one.

You have not suggested how local panels can be rid of the bias that you accuse them of.

You have given no statistics but quote some sort of statistical observation (unexplained) and conclude that the Conservative Party is not attractive to female candidates of sufficient quality.
But you do not explain why you think this is so, or what you think should be done to correct the situation.
Apart from these little local difficulties, I follow your argument. Not!

Bernie Gudgeon

Perverse politics: I’ve voted Conservative since 1979 and until today never questioned this compulsion. I’m a democrat and parliamentarian, and will expect far more probity from those backbenchers elected to our future government. As with the Blair Babes, I suspect women are preferred by Cameron because they’re assumed to be malleable, will do what they are told, are much less likely to rock the boat ... The country needs to be driven by our best talent; we do not deserve another cohort of yes men (or women).

wrinkled weasel

Women should think about fluffy white kittens and leave politics to men, which most of the sensible ones appear to do, given the hoo ha.

The only shortlist you cannot apparently do away with is the all venal-thieving-bastard shortlists.

Verity

Bernie Gudgeon raises a point no one else has mentioned: "As with the Blair Babes, I suspect women are preferred by Cameron because they’re assumed to be malleable."

Dave does indeed have a nasty authoritarian streak and I suspect that is a large part of it. Other than that, I think he wants to pose about as assisting the underdog, but he has no references to quote about how many professional women are trying to stand and being rejected. I suspect, compared to the numbers of men who put themselves forward, their number is ... not very much. "Positive discrimination" (which is still discrimination) a la the 1980s has been discredited.

Can Dave (shortened from David, to copy his hero, Anthony Blair's conversion to Tony) point to a single instance where a strong, principled, articulate, right thinking woman was turned down in favour of a less capable man? A single instance?

TGF UKIP

So much for "localism" so hyped by his beloved Tories and so espoused by our beloved Editor.

The Mekon is right though. His man Dave long ago promised that a third (or was it a half?) of their cabinet would be women so raw material they have got to find no matter how raw, callow and useless it may be be. They simply are going to have to unearth more Spelmans.

Personally though, I don't think this goes far enough and I am confidently looking forward to The Mekon imposing on the associations all gay and all ethnic shortlists. After all Dave's pc credentials count above all else.

Chloe for Defence Secretary!

Verity

There's a short, strong piece by Perry de Havilland at Samizdata.net/blog called "The Tory Party: The Delusion of Choice". He refers specifically to David Cameron's leadership.

Worth a read.

David Ossitt

Question.

Is DavidDP the son of dirty euro?

Verity

TGF UKIP - I was wondering where you were!

For everyone's delectation, Mailonline ran a piece on Dave's latest flirtation with insanity, and the cascade of comments is undilutedly against David Cameron. Many comment on his Nu Labour qualifications and swear that they won't be voting Tory this time.

Did Cameron misjudge this? Did he think that the electorate was panting to have underqualified women and minorities forced on them? How divorced is this individual from the real world? Votes are surging away from the Tories. A good thing, in my opinion as it's the only way we can get rid of Dave, who I think genuinely thinks he is Blair Mark II.

It is curious that he cannot see how much people loathe Tony Blair.

Occasional Ostrich

John Backhouse
October 20th, 2009 1:11pm

What makes you think Barbara Castle, the transport minister who couldn't drive, was any good. In every one of her sppeches I ever saw televised she dripped pure class hatred. And it wasn't just the toffs she banged on about, she included every owner of a small (say) ten or so man business who worked appalling hours just to hold the business together against all the usual suspects. And that little bit of history is repeating itself again and again, as I write.

HairyNoddy

How noble of Mr Camoron to slam the door of opportunity on male Conservative candidates. Of course there's no question of him putting his money where his mouth is and standing aside himself. Naturally.

JohnAnt

"three rock-solid safe tory seats had selected their candidates over the weekend and all three were white, middle-aged, middle classed men, GPs, doctors, bankers."
So Chris, it's not that they're men - you'd object to white, middle-aged, middle classed *women* who were GPs, doctors, or bankers.
The point about being Tory is that you don't assume a woman MP has to be there to fulfil a quota: we can safely leave quotas to the lefties.
But professions that demand a reasonably high IQ cannot be a bad preparation for parliament or indeed for government, whether they be men or women.
As to the reason why in general fewer conservative women aspire to become MPs - well, the answer's really in the question, isn't it.

2trueblue

DISCRIMINATION.. whether it is positive or negative it is still discrimination and unacceptable.

Cogito Ergosum

I wonder how many local party workers will turn out for election-bashing-duties if a candidate is forced upon them?

TGF UKIP

Verity, when The Mekon and his mouthpiece, Dave, provide ammo like this how can I not resist?

Bill

Candidates should be selected on merit alone. I would not vote for any candidate if others had been excluded on grounds of gender, race or any other reason. Hasn't Cameron learned anything from the New Labour disaster?

THX1138

Well done Dave you must getting something right if you're winding up the old dinosaurs on this blog.

In fact a good rule of thumb for policies could be, if the Saloon Bar bores on the Coffee House don't like the idea you know you're on the right track.

John Bracewell

The state of the country's finances must have really scared Cameron. It is the first GE I have known when both main party leaders are trying to lose the election.
In Brown's case through sheer incompetence and Cameron through trying to be Blair II with all the negative connotations that has for the Conservative voters, if not for Central Office.

Verity

Bill, hasn't Cameron learned anything from the NuLabour disaster, you ask?

Well, no, I don't think he has, because he doesn't see the hollowing out of our country, the surrendering of the education of our children a Soviet style eduction system, surrender of the concept of marriage and a stable home, surrender of the moral high ground to an aggressive group of incomers whose loyalty is to a primitive desert diety, not the Christian ideals on which Britain and Europe were founded, as anything to worry about.

What David (I will not give him a nickname) Cameron sees is ELECTION TO THREE TERMS IN OFFICE and then major boosts to the ego with international feting with money chinking in, and a comfy gig at the toppest of top tables in Brussels with a swanky title and outriders with his limo.

The guy's a jerk. You can see it in his vapid, greedy little face.

TGF UKIP

And if what Dave is up to pleases the lifelong Labour supporting, Blair-loving, arch europhile, ultra pc and headbangingly green THX 1138, the dinosaurs know they have got it dead right when they comprehensively demolish it with mockery.

maryb

"the old dinosaurs on this blog."
So all '-isms' are forbidden - except for Ageism, which must be enforced willy nilly (if you know what that means). Doubtless a euthanasia programme would be welcome to such a writer.

Number Plate - You must come from a unique tribe that has no respect for its tribal Elders ... You know, the guardians and transmitters of tribal wisdom.

Otherwise, one can only assume that your contribution to this blog is as an agent for those who seek to eliminate all things British. And that you hold the secret of eternal youth.

john miller

Does no one work at the Smartie factory anymore? Have they all gone into politics?

I suppose having successfully lobbied for the inclusion of blue ones they have moved on to pastures new.

Fergus Pickering

WHY is discrimination unacceptable? I think it is thoroughly acceptable. It just means choosing one thing over another, right. And what is all this cant about the 'best' candidates? Didn't do very well last time, did we? The great Dave-o wants more women and more blacks for reasons obvious to the thickest, and, yes, I do mean you lot. Are ANY of Blair's babes, and I include the egregious Jackie Smith, really worse than Gordon Brown, Ed Balls and the horrible guy who used to dig up cricket pitches, ah yes, Peter Hain? Were these really the 'best' candidates? And local Tories tend to be as thick as pigshit too. I wouldn't trust a committee of them to tell me the time.

Mike Towl

Sirs,
Dave has it wrong this time. Personally I don't care if the whole Commons is made up of women. Black, white, green or khaki! Providing they are the best people for the job. But working the quota system doesn't work. Remember 'Blairs Babes?' How many more Jacqui Smith's do we want?

Hawkeye

Fergus Pickering said: "WHY is discrimination unacceptable? I think it is thoroughly acceptable"

OK. So you will not complain if all MPs are from Eton and non-Etonians need not apply? I presume you are in favour of discrimination that YOU like.

THX1138

maryb- Being an old dinosaur is a state of mind and nothing to do with age.

John Bracewell

Fergus Pickering, your logic is bizarre, just because Labour who adopted your much coveted 'all women selection lists' (you are in favour of discrimination) ended up with useless Blair Babes and according to you useless Labour men too, that does not mean the Conservatives should not strive to choose much better and indeed the best candidates. Your description of the intellectual capabilities of local Tories seems to apply equally to you.

Verity

Ian Walker writes: "The idea is not to attract more female applicants, but higher quality ones. The local businesswomen, headteachers, doctors; these are the people who need to be convinced to apply."

You mean local businesswomen, head teachers and doctors are timid, hesitant people? I hope this was tongue in cheek on your part.

But this raises the point, why would we want timid, hesitant people who have to be "convinced" to stand, in Parliament? This whole construct is ridiculous, and that it came from an individual who hopes to occupy the highest elected position in the country is frankly alarming.

Verity

Frankly, chaps and chapesses, I don't want to jinx it by speaking too soon, but I have a feeling this was a leap to the far left too far on David Cameron's part.

Yesterday, when I read it in the evening UK time, the story had had almost 400 comments, all but 2 (that I read; I didn't plough through them all) absolutely horrified. Poster after poster saying, "Well, the Tories have just lost my vote. Hello, UKIP."

We may get a change of Leader before the GE.