Associations to be forced to select from gender-balanced shortlists?

Andrew Grice has a good scoop about selection procedures in today's Independent, if not a very good understanding of the current system.

It looks like everybody on the candidates list, not just the priority list, will soon be able to apply for any seat - and be able to try and prove their local credentials. This addresses an issue often raised here that although Associations can recommend non-priority local candidates that they know, candidates themselves are kept out of the loop on selections in seats that they may have strong local connections with.

Unfortunately this sensible amendment is accompanied by a more controversial proposal: to make it mandatory for final shortlists to include two men and two women. This would close the so-called "loophole" of Associations being able to choose all-male shortlists for open primaries.

It's not clear at this stage how rigid this would be. What if two female candidates can't be found? What if the Association wanted to shortlist three females - would the Association still have to shortlist two men? The Party Board will have to approve these changes next week but it's unlikely that the representatives of the voluntary Party will knock it back.

50% women shortlists aren't as disagreeable as all-women shortlists, but many of the arguments against the latter such as "the Widdecombe critique", are still applicable.

Deputy Editor

Lunchtime update from the Press Association:

"Deputy party chairman John Maples, who is responsible for candidates, said: "The Priority List (A-list) has helped us to make significant progress, and so far nearly 40% of selected candidates are women, but we can still do better. The new option toughens up the rules on women and allows more candidates to apply for seats in their region."

The proposal is likely to be seen as a defeat for the 'A-list' system, intended by Mr Cameron to ensure more women and ethnic priority candidates were selected for winnable seats. It has proved highly controversial among local constituencies that deeply resented having candidates imposed on them from party headquarters in London."