What do Rwanda, Kazakhstan and Tunisia have in common? Their parliaments have a higher proportion of women MPs than the UK. In fact, we’re 58th in this league table.
And what about how that translates into government? France, Italy, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Bulgaria and Romania all have a higher proportion of women in their cabinets than we do. And, what is more, it is getting worse in the United Kingdom. Since Maria Miller left the cabinet, there are now only three women who are full members of cabinet – this is the lowest level since 1997.
For more depressing background on our record of women’s representation look at the excellent Campaign for Women and Democracy website.
David Cameron in his moderniser days pledged that a third of his government would be women. When rightly challenged by Catherine McKinnell in a recent prime minister’s questions, he blamed the Liberal Democrats for their record. He has got a point that the Tories did better than the Liberal Democrats in their election of women in 2010. But, to put that into context, that was 16 per cent versus 12 per cent. So, if we had had to depend on the Tories and Liberal Democrats for women’s representation in parliament, we would be below Saudi Arabia in the league table. It was only Labour’s 34 per cent which dragged us above them.
But before we get carried away with the idea that this is because we are all good sorts in the Labour party, it is worth remembering that the difference to our representation has been made by all-women shortlists. Historically Labour has been the party with the best representation of women and with the greatest internal pressure to ensure a better gender balance among candidates. Despite this, in 1945, 21 Labour women were elected. In 1987, 21 Labour women were elected. In 1992, all constituencies were required to have a woman on the shortlist – 36 Labour women were elected. Between 1992 and 1997, a campaign led by Labour women ensured that there were AWS in half of all potentially winnable seats. In 1997, 101 Labour women were elected.
But in 2001 when legal action meant that we couldn’t use all-women shortlists, there were only four new women elected and 30 new men.
This week, Nick Clegg mooted the idea of introducing all-women shortlists for the Liberal Democrats. This would have been an important step forward if he had not caveated this with a timetable which would not see any action until after the 2015 general election. So it will be at least six years until the Liberal Democrats take the only action which has been proved to make a decisive difference to women’s representation in our first past the post one member constituency system.
I am now reconciled to the fact that I will probably be dead before we move significantly up the representation league table. However, I would like my sons to be able to benefit from a legislature and a government which better represents the whole country and brings diverse talents to the table.
It’s quite simple, Clegg and Cameron – either you believe in more equal political representation and are willing to take action or you don’t. Platitudes just won’t cut it any more.
———————————
Jacqui Smith is a former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @smithjj62
———————————
This nonsense should have ended when a white male American was employed by the party but no the feministas still insist in making noise.
Simple question to ask then is why, especially after the cowardice accusations against Farage, did the party not show its moral fortitude in all its glory and field an AWS product in Newark?
Think of all the media coverage the scheme would have got, Harriet and Co. banging their drums demanding we only vote for women, not because they have anything stupid like the ability to do the job but simply because they are women….
This AWS policy is way past its sell by date. It may have been a short term fix for problems in some London constituencies many years ago but it has never been useful up here in the North. We have always promoted capable women to offices at all levels. If fewer women than men put themselves forward as prospective MPs we don’t get better representation by eliminating over half the qualified potential applicants. Women may indeed bring a “new perspective” but in many respects their qualities as MPs are the same as their male colleagues – and why ever not? Regardless of their reputation as the “gentle sex” they can be equally ruthless in action. Our CLP has been devastated by the “success” of a candidate who diligently hoovered up all the postal votes of less active members. She was by general agreement very weak at the hustings, but it didn’t matter as by then all the necessary votes were “in the bag”. Progress?