A dozen male voices growled ‘hear, hear’ as the minister stood to resume his wind-up of the day’s debate. Convention demanded that the contributors be named. My eyelids drooped as he worked his way through the list of members. The only way to escape the ignominy of being caught asleep on camera was to play a game. I opted for ‘spot the woman’ – the less popular, but equally frustrating, alternative to ‘four minute warning’.
‘Four minute warning’ involves identifying one honourable member on the minister’s list with whom you would happily spend your last four minutes on earth. It is surprisingly unproductive. ‘Spot the woman’ is not much better. No women appeared to have spoken in the debate. In fact, I was the only woman in the chamber.
This is not nearly as unusual as it ought to be at Westminster at the beginning of the 21st century. Out of the 659 members, 118 are women. Of these 95 are Labour, fourteen are Conservative, five are Liberal Democrats, and four are from the other parties. In other words, 17.9 percent of all Britain’s MPs are women. This is slightly less than when I entered the House in 1997 – the high point of women’s representation in this country. Then women accounted for 18.2 percent of all MPs.
In international terms that high is pretty low. On the women’s representation league table Britain comes in below countries like Laos and China. Without John Smith’s introduction of women-only short lists in 1993 in half of all marginal seats and half of the seats where Labour MPs were retiring, it would have been even lower. Thirty-five of the 101 Labour women elected in the landslide of 1997 owed their political lives to all-women short lists. Several of them have become ministers, including Maria Eagle, Melanie Johnson, Sally Keeble and Jacqui Smith.
Thanks to all-women short lists, Britain’s democratic deficit is lower than that of countries like Costa Rica and Turkmenistan. However, the short lists came to an abrupt end in 1996 after an industrial tribunal decision. Though Labour left the women already selected under them in place for the 1997 election, the system was not used in the 2001 election. That is why the number of Labour women MPs fell by five. That is also why six women were selected in the 37 seats with retiring Labour MPs in 2001. It also explains the fact that of the 10 by-elections held since 1997, not one has returned a single Labour woman to Parliament.
Without the spur of all-women short lists, constituencies mainly choose men. Why? The main reason, I believe, is the pervasive stereotype of an MP as male, middle-aged and, it has to be said, white. This is reinforced by our combative and confrontational political culture. The fact that women generally prefer consensual methods of problem solving fuels this perception. An MP has to be a champion. With such a male political culture it is hardly surprising that constituencies tend to choose men to champion them at Westminster.
A second reason is the hours MPs work. Both in Parliament and outside, the ‘what about your family?’ question, though never actually asked at Labour selections, dogs women candidates. Men are assumed to have wives to deal with the caring side of their lives. Women do not. The fact that women still do most of the caring in our society is not lost on constituencies who worry that they simply will not have the time to look after everything and everyone.
Another barrier is money. On average, women still earn less than men and are still the main carers in their family. This means that they have to pay more to attend the 20 plus meetings which each selection involves. Sitters, take-away meals and special treats for those left behind all add up. And then there are the clothes. No woman can get away with wearing one suit and one pair of shoes during a selection. Men can. A petty detail, but it costs.
So we have a classic ‘catch 22’ situation. Women will not go into politics until things change. Things will not change until they do. What is to be done? Bring back all-women shortlists is, and has been, many women’s response. Now, thanks to the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act, we can do so.
At present, there has to be one woman on every short list. All too often that woman is the only woman. Now constituencies who opt for all-women short lists will be able to choose between five or six. Women are also more likely to put themselves forward for all-women contests because they know that they have a far greater chance of winning them.
No woman wants all-women short lists. But no woman wants politics to continue as it is. That is why there was cross party support for the bill that allowed their re-introduction, on a voluntary basis, into British political life. I look forward to their early demise but know that, without them, ‘spot the woman’ will continue to be a frustrating game.