If they achieve nothing else, the Tories’ A-list and Liberal Democrats’ gender balance taskforce at least acknowledge women MPs are vital to projecting a modernised party image and attracting women voters. The Labour party enjoyed an increased share of the women’s vote and 26 newly elected women MPs in 2005. This came as a wake-up call to both the Tories and Lib Dems who have a long way to go to close their respective gender gaps.
But will the measures they have introduced work? And why is it that neither is prepared to guarantee change through all-women shortlists? The reality is that strong rhetoric against discrimination is all well and good, but without strong leadership it is worth little to aspiring female candidates.
Labour set the bar for getting women into parliament with all-women shortlists and the results speak for themselves – 28 per cent of Labour MPs are women compared to 9 per cent of Tory MPs and 16 per cent of Lib Dem MPs.
In contrast, David Cameron’s attempts to drag his party into the 21st century have had little effect. His much-publicised (and photographed) A-list has so far managed only seven female candidates out of 23 selections, which is almost identical to the number selected before the list was introduced. In response he introduced open primaries of all local voters to select candidates in some constituencies, and others will be forced to include two women on a final shortlist of four.
But these will have little effect on the social, cultural and political barriers which exist for aspiring women politicians. Open primaries may well be more democratic but will have little impact on attitudes. Forcing associations to include two women causes upset and provokes backlash, but doesn’t justify this fuss by ensuring a woman is selected.
All-women shortlists were part of a fundamental review of the Labour party’s future and have delivered dramatic increases in the number of female MPs. The ingrained prejudices in the Tory party cannot be overcome by proposals which give the impression of change but ultimately can’t deliver it. If Cameron is serious about being more representative he must take what he describes as a ‘step too far’ and introduce all-women shortlists.
The reality is his party is not interested in cooperating with anything that will actually deliver change. Ann Widdecombe MP called the latest measures ‘an insult to women’ and the editorial of the ConservativeHome website warns they will ‘appal party democrats who value the freedoms of grassroots members’. If Cameron wants modernisation he needs to confront his party on this issue rather than just prodding them in the right direction.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have opted for much softer measures. They set firm targets in 2001 (including female candidates in 40 per cent of held seats and those requiring a swing of less than 7.5 per cent) and the gender balance taskforce has had some impact. They increased the proportion of female MPs in the parliamentary party from 9.6 per cent in 2001 to 16.4 per cent in 2005. However, only 23 per cent of candidates overall for the 2005 election were women. This suggests that relying solely on equality promotion activities (such as special training and financial assistance) is not enough to ensure a significant increase of female candidates.
If the two main opposition parties are serious about equal political representation they need to match their political bravado with meaningful procedural muscle. Cameron’s convoluted proposals are gambling on an improbable change of attitude in his party, and he will find himself at the next election flanked by the same old faces.