Cameron's office plans for 20 of 35 safest seats to choose women

This morning's Telegraph reported a leaked memo revealing a "secret plan" to favour women in the party's safest seats.  ConservativeHome has been able to verify The Telegraph story.  Pasted below is a leaked copy of a confidential email from Edward Llewellyn - David Cameron's chief of staff - to key advisers.  The email agreed that the party should aim to ensure that women are selected in "at least 20 of the 35 seats in play" before the Party Conference.  The constituency officers of the 35 plus seats will be invited to meetings with Bernard Jenkin in David Cameron's office.  "DC would drop in on these meetings whenever possible," point five of the memo states.  Click on the image to enlarge the leaked email.

At a lunchtime meeting with lobby journalists today, David Cameron said that more than 50% of the candidates on the Priority List are women and 10% are from ethnic minorities.  Applicants for the List will receive their letters after May 4th's local elections.

Related link: Bernard Jenkin answers questions posed by ConservativeHome readers.

Comments

[PassingThru]

20 out of 35 isnt the maximum!!! If youre going to discriminate, at least do it properly!!!

i guess only 'aiming' seats that way doesnt qualify as non-merit based discrimination though?

[Chris Palmer]

At least it's an aim, rather than a forceful "you will." It's not as bad as it sounds.

[Andrew Woodman]

There's trouble ahead imo.

[Chris]

"At least it's an aim, rather than a forceful "you will." It's not as bad as it sounds."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who read it that way. I think its fair to set yourself an aim, even if it isn't one that is popular or is necessarilly doable. What would be wrong would be if we actually picked 20 seats and told them they would have a woman candidate. Then again who would be stupid enough to rish Blaneau Gwent x20?

[Sean Fear]

If *more than* 50% are women, then they must be passing in excess of 60% of the women, and failing in excess of 80% of the men. I would have thought the implications in terms of candidate quality (leaving aside the obvious unfairness) were pretty obvious.

[Hmmmm]

This is an absolute disgrace. The A list was bad enough, but not making it a fair fight is appalling. How are the 400 or so men on the list supposed to feel? How does DC expect to retain their support? Its idiotic and morally wrong.

[Andrew Woodman]

Can someone remind me how many women applied to be on the list? It was certainly a lot under 50%. One can only assume that there has been quite a bit of positive discrimination for the list to have more than 50% of women on it and it will take a lot more than a chat with Bernard Jenkin with David Cameron 'popping in' to convince local parties.

[Gareth]

One can only feel uneasy (even queasy) when the mechanics of the positive discrimination policy are set out.

It seems to me that the ideological and intellectual case against any form of positive discrimination is overwhelming, but the political argument in favour of it for the tory party, at this time, is equally overwhelming. Basically, I'm prepared to swallow this bitter pill if it's going to help get us elected again and I think that it will.

[James Turner]

So which of them leaked it?

[malcolm]

Do you Gareth.I genuinely don't believe it will make a blind bit of difference either way.We will go through a lot of pain for nothing.

[Rick]

What's the name of the woman who will be standing in Witney ?

[Andrew Woodman]

I think having candidates who get about the seat in the time prior to the election and work hard to promote the party is more likely to win us an election rather than tinkering about with positive discrimination.

[Gareth]

Yeah, I honestly think it will help a lot. I see it as a one-off measure to produce a step change in the number of women and BME tory M.P's, to bring about the culture change that will render further positive discrimination unnecessary.

I really think that we just can't go on having selction committees refusing to select high calibre women because they have an outdated view of what a tory M.P. should 'look' like.

[Andrew Woodman]

How often has that happened though? Women have got through in the past. I'm a little uneasy about this and will be very interested in who's on the list.

[Ted]

Perhaps there were less women applying but they were outstanding? Doubt it but I'd like the whole matter dealt with quickly so we have candidates in place and can stop navel gazing.

DC was open in his election about this - I don't like it much but neither do I like the current under-representation. I don't think we should be a quota based party and hope that after a short period the whole A List/Gold List stuff is dismantled and we go back to a single approved list.

[Andy Stidwill]

I support this proposal, but we all know what the local associations are like; quite of lot of them simply won't accept having candidates forced on them.

UKIP must be busy printing out application forms.

[Nicholas Slide]

Looks fine to me. The fact is, there aren't enough female Tory MPs. We were told during Cameron's leadership election he'd be looking deeply into this issue, so should be no surprise.

[Hmmmm]

Gareth if more men applied than women by a factor of 3 to 1 as suggested, and the same numbers of each are on the A list then by definition the 'quality' (whatever that means) of the women will be lower than the men.
This is about gesture politics and nothing more. Its comptemptible

There arent enough women at the top of FTSE 100 companies - should we have some just for the sake of it? whatever happened to talent and merit? Two wrongs dont make a right....

[Sir Buffy de Vere Spoofington, Bt]

This is a jolly good idea. If we don't do something like this to convince the voters we have changed, we'll never have a female leader and we'll never have a female Tory Prime Minister, will we?

[Anon]

What thought has been goven to the "careers" of those not on the A list. Do the likes of BJ and DC expect people effectively told you arent good enough to hang around if they arent offered an alternative career path. The problem is those 400 rejected will be some of the most active members of the party - but perhaps we dont need them??

[Richard]

"This is a jolly good idea. If we don't do something like this to convince the voters we have changed, we'll never have a female leader and we'll never have a female Tory Prime Minister, will we?"

While your comment is satirical is does raise an interesting point - the supposedly sexist Conservative Party is the only one to have selected a female leader.

[AC Fisher]

Frankly ridiculous. We should select candidates on their competence, not sex or race. This is hugely insulting for those men applying who are up to the job.

When it comes to many constituencies, this may well hinder the chances of competent women as the association won't want to be dictated to by CCO.

[Will]

Cameron's cuties to rival Blair's babes.

Women who would not get there on merit, foisted on associations who just want to pick the best person for the job.

[Henry Cook]

Considering women have been unfairly discriminated against by the party since its foundation, I don't see a problem in a role reversal over the next few years to restore the balance. I refuse to believe that 17 female MPs compared to 181 male MPs (if I've got the numbers right) represents a meritocratic selection system. Therefore I would suggest many current male MPs are not in the house entirely 'on merit', and would not match up to 'Gold list' standard.

[Suggestion]

Hear, hear Henry. 17 women vs 181 men. When you put it like that....

[Richard]

"Considering women have been unfairly discriminated against by the party since its foundation, I don't see a problem in a role reversal over the next few years to restore the balance."

Would you believe in applying that to all areas of society that have discriminated against women since the Conservative Party was founded? One injustice does not excuse another injustice.

[geoffrey brinton]

This is political-correctness one bridge to far, again. We do not need to justify ourselves as we were the first to appoint and vote for a female PM. The women i know and work with, know they are well able to do anything they put thier minds to without 'bending the rules' and accordingly be seen to 'carry favour'. Lets get on with being good conservatives in thought, word and deed. Let new labour be seen to need to carry favour by always being ultra P-C

[Jack Stone]

This is definatly a move in the right direction and will benefit the party by making it look a bit more like modern Britain but I do believe that its probably more important for the party to ensure that it gets more MP`s from ethnic minorities than it is women.
I would also like the party to make more of an effort to attract disabled people not just into the party but to stand for Parliament. The disabled sadly are a section that is largely overlooked and discrimated against by not just all the parties but society in general.

[Richard]

Hello Jack, good to see you again. Now I know you don't take yourself seriously I'm starting to enjoy your posts. Tell me, what do you think of the underrepresentation of hermaphrodites?

[Andrew Woodman]

What about the underrepresentation of people with tatteos?

[Andy Stidwill]

Even worse than the figure of 17 women in total is that we have only 3 female MPs under 45.

[Esbonio]

Every time the current leadership makes an annoucement or even an off the cuff remark, I feel amongst other emotions a great an overwhelming sense of ennui.

[James Maskell]

Words beggar belief. If Cameron wants fairness, then have it fair with candidates being assessed based on their qualifications for the seats and their appropriateness for the job. Punishing men for having penises is a shockingly bad move and I condemn this. Centralisation, biased selection, inplied bullying. I deplore this all.

Every single person at that meeting who agreed to this memo should resign, right now. I refuse to have anything to do with this. If this is the direction the Party wishes to go in then I am no longer a Conservative.

I am absolutely incandesent about this. I have stood up for this Party and I take a rapping for my membership of the Party on an almost daily basis by critics in Thanet and I so this so that I can be true to myself. Telling the people that women get an advantage over men simply because there are more men is something I will not support.

Being blatantly honest here, I want to be a Councillor for this Party. I want to be a Conservative Councillor and represent the people with the best of my powers and with the strength of my will. I will fight every day for those who need my help. If Cameron truly believes in this and the Party follows this, then my connection with this Party is over, however much it will break my heart for it to end.

[Andrew Woodman]

Say what you think James!

[Richard]

How long until someone trots out that inevitable phase: "The ends justify the means".

How fitting that this should crop up on the same day that Peter Law died. He showed that "positive discrimination" isn't necessarily electorally popular.

[Esbonio]

James

I feel your pain and I am not kidding.

The irony is the current leadership appear to think they are or are going to be so connected when in fact they strike me as cringingly passe.

The country is in a real mess and all they want to talk is mood music.

[John Hustings]

"How fitting that this should crop up on the same day that Peter Law died. He showed that "positive discrimination" isn't necessarily electorally popular."

He did more than that. He showed that it was actually rather *unpopular*.

[Richard]

The more I think about it, the more I begin to see just how wreckless this idea is. The Party is generally united behind Cameron. Even the Cameron-sceptics are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Party members aren't actively looking for an excuse to pick a fight. Yet I fear this measure is likely to provoke a significant storm of criticism. Many who want to remain loyal to Cameron will feel they have no choice but to speak out in the hope that this idea will be prevented. In a way it's also insulting - implying that constituency associations are sexist. While this may be true in some cases, tarring everyone with the same brush is not a good idea.

[Chad]

Sorry to quote Built To Last again but:

social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by empowering people and communities – instead of thinking that only the state can guarantee fairness.

Fine words, once again, but, once again based on actual action, this will have to be reversed and reworded as:

social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by not involving people and communities – instead we think that only the party can guarantee fairness.

What's so wrong in seeking to actually deliver the fine words? That's what B2L seems to promise but the reality is the opposite.

Let communities pick from a range of candidates to find the right person that they would like to fight against the other parties.

[Kicked off the list]

This policy would mean that at least a dozen male PPCs who lost narrowly in May 2005 would be deselected. What a way to treat our top talent!!

[Goldie]

WHY, OH WHY is no one reflecting on the REAL ISSUE behind this whole side-show:

THIS AMOUNTS TO A COUP BY THE CAMERON CABAL. Yes, I understand that his leadership was supported by a large majority of the membership and a significant part of the parliamentary party. However, by centralising candidate selection to this extent, and given the strong ideological position of the Cameron cabal, it is obvious that, through this A-list and similar mechanisms, the "modernizing" faction seek to add to their numbers in the parliamentary party. Once these reforms are in place, it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that you can be selected for a target seat if you don't agree with the "new orthodoxy" of the Cameron cabal. It is very unlikely that you will be selected if you espouse the kind of Conservative policies that were central to, say, our previous Gen. Election Manifesto (even though this was written by a certain D. Cameron), not to mention anything to the *right* of such Manifesto.

To the extent these reforms are not checked and local autonomy preserved, this therefore amounts to a MASSIVE shift in power and consequently in the very character of the parliamentary party.

It will also open up ever more space on the political right, thus making a rightist breakaway from the Conservative Party ever more likely, and ensuring that such break-away has more political talent available to it than would be the case otherwise.

(And I say all this as an enthusiastic former Cameron supporter. I simply believe that the 'And Theory of Conservatism' he sold us during his leadership campaign has erroneously been discarded).

[Patsy Sergeant]

I seem to be the only recognisable female that has posted on this thread so far, and no doubt what I am going to say will annoy some women! But I really don't like the idea of active positive discrimination, I should hate to win a seat as an MP knowing that I had been positively favoured. I am not saying that I don't want women MP's - Mrs. Thatcher was amazing until her last few years, and I am sure that she had to cope with a lot of discrimination just because she was a woman (its usually men I find who express dislike of her). Heath's behaviour towards her was positively childish.

I think the only thing which is important is finding the most effective person for the job, whichever the sex. Doing that (in this dayanage) is difficult enough, perhaps the Americans have methods of vetting and discovering if a person is suitable. I think that leaving it up to the local party is rather a responsibility, but perhaps Central Office is more involved than I am aware of.

[Rick]

New Labour recruited lots of women MPs - like Helen Brinton/Clark and Julia Drown - they made a real impression. It is amazing how New Labour has been such a family-friendly, moderate party and has bveen fully influenced by Blair's Babes - what a paragon of virtue it has turned out to be.

Now it's Dave's turn - no doubt a "doughnut" around the Leader for the TV pics - it is so wonderful to see it all replicated - as Yogi Berra said "It's deja-vu all over again"

[Annabel Herriott]

Hmmmm! Why is it idiotic and morally wrong? Are you a mysoginist? And what has FTSE 100 got to do with it? We arnt trying to take over Tescos here, we are trying to get a team together that will sort out the mess Nulab will have left for us.
Andrew -- the women were probably headhunted, the men probably queuing up at the door. Have you not looked at Women2Win lately? They are having meetings and seminars to head hunt the best.
Gareth is spot on. I have sat on selection committees with these outdated views. Wimmen!! Kitchen!! Now!! OK, Will?
Ted is the sensible one here.
and Richard!! Women have been making their mark over the last years. In fact I believe over half medical school intake are women these days?
It has to happen, like it or not. Each constituency will select the candidate that best fits their constituency profile, so that I dont expect Colne Valley to chose a Chelsea Barrister. That would go down like a lead balloon on the door step, and be an absolute gift to the DimLebs.

[Jon White]

I am reminded of famous oxymorons, such a "military intelligence". The most relevant one is, of course, "positive discimination". This move is madness. We are Conservatives, for heaven's sake. We should be in favour of a meritocracy. The candidate selected should be the best for the job, and with the best chance of winning. The fact that they have male or female genitalia should not matter.

[Chad]

Well said Patsy. Cameron does have a good knack of identifying the main problems that need addressing but an awful one of proposing how to solve them.

Clearly the level of female MP's is unrepresentative, and as other have noted, associations seem loathed to pick female, ethnic minorities etc. I think we can all see that, but the solution should never be positive discrimination.

It is simply discrimination, and it cheapens the efforts of those who have already earned their position and those who benefit from it. It simply creates imbalance and two classes of MP who will always be suspicious of each other.

Open Primaries including party members and a careful selection of representative locals given a choice from a selection of hopefuls would get communities involved and show that they have been empowered to choose the right person to fight for the seat, not one imposed by cco.

As someone else has noted, safe seats should be opened up in this way too with the current emcumbent having to fight for their seat. It would certainly ensure that MP's take an active interest in their constituency.

How about testing it on Maude and May's constituencies seeing as they are so keen to 'modernise' and promote 'equality'?

[Will]

Annabel, of the three candidates your association choose to fight the last election weren't two women - sounds like your association picked them on merit - no sign of sexism.

You seem to want a Kali Mountford of your own. Rather than a free and open selection, picking the best candidate as you did with the excellent Maggie Throup, you seem to want to have your choice limited and unduely influenced.

Hope you don't get a Chelsea barrister, but she might be the best of the women you are being pushed to select.

[Richard]

"Hmmmm! Why is it idiotic and morally wrong? Are you a mysoginist? "

People are not mysoginistic because they oppose positive discrimination on principle. That's an accusation I'd expect from the Far Left.

[Mark Fulford]

We are Conservatives, for heaven's sake. We should be in favour of a meritocracy.

Yes, but we now know that it hasn't been a meritocracy; that until now men have been favoured over women. It is not enough to say "sorry, we'll play fair from now on". The imbalance is self-propagating and therefore has to be actively corrected.

[Annabel Herriott]

Will! Are you deliberatly misreading my post, or you just trying to under mine me? We thankfully got Maggie after 2 false starts as you obviously know, or you would not be making snide remarks. We wernt to keep Mags, as she is so well established in Solihull, it made perfect sense to have her there. IF we had been lucky enough to have her first time round, with 2 years to work the seat, instead of 6 months, I have no doubt at all that she would be in Westminster right now. And before there are any more cracks about what were we doing picking a midlander, Maggie is a yorkshire lass, born and bred, and she wanted to be nearer her parents. Is that OK for you??
Now, we ideally need someone at least Northern, man or women, with the qualities to remove Mountford.

[Will]

Annabel, you misunderstand. I'm saying that without central office interference you picked the best candidate regardless of their sex, last time.

Why do you think you need your association officers to meet and be persuaded by Bernard Jenkin not to again select the best, but regardless choose a women as outlined in the memo?

[Richard Allen]

WHY, OH WHY is no one reflecting on the REAL ISSUE behind this whole side-show:

THIS AMOUNTS TO A COUP BY THE CAMERON CABAL. Yes, I understand that his leadership was supported by a large majority of the membership and a significant part of the parliamentary party. However, by centralising candidate selection to this extent, and given the strong ideological position of the Cameron cabal, it is obvious that, through this A-list and similar mechanisms, the "modernizing" faction seek to add to their numbers in the parliamentary party. Once these reforms are in place, it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that you can be selected for a target seat if you don't agree with the "new orthodoxy" of the Cameron cabal. It is very unlikely that you will be selected if you espouse the kind of Conservative policies that were central to, say, our previous Gen. Election Manifesto (even though this was written by a certain D. Cameron), not to mention anything to the *right* of such Manifesto.

True enough Goldie but it should hardly come as a surprise to anyone.

[Richard]

"Yes, but we now know that it hasn't been a meritocracy; that until now men have been favoured over women. It is not enough to say "sorry, we'll play fair from now on". The imbalance is self-propagating and therefore has to be actively corrected."

Would you believe in applying that to all areas of society that have discriminated against women since the Conservative Party was founded? One injustice does not excuse another injustice.

[Sean Fear]

It is not enough to say "sorry, we'll play fair from now on".

Well, actually, I think the remedy for unfairness is fairness. Saying we'll discriminate against members of a particular group, at an individual level, because other members of that group have benefitted at other periods of history is the worst kind of socialism.

[Annabel Herriott]

Will, It all depends on who applies for Colne Valley doesnt it? We can only select from who arrives n'est ce pas?? Go read what John Wesley had to say about Colne Valley folk, then try to imagine them Taking to anyone south of Watford with no parental, or grandparental connections, or who went to Hudds Uni, or has worked here for a while. CCHQ can only pursuade, my understanding is they cannot force-- as yet!

[Ted]

Sean, so do you believe that the next say 30 selections would have produced a "fair" result without CCHQ interference? I dislike this A List stuff but I do not believe that a party with 90% male representation does demonstrate fairness today - despite years of talk we still seem to end up with favourite sons.

I am today really angry about the Home Office, still angry about "The best year ever", concerned that Tax credits are still being mismanaged, upset that peerages for cash seems to have become state funding of parties and a little bit irratated by the A list.

[Mark Fulford]

One injustice does not excuse another injustice.

To right a listing vessel you have to actively move ballast. Unless you take positive corrective action, the load continues to shift and the vessel eventually capsizes and sinks. The situation is no different in the Conservative party. The shifted balance makes us unattractive to women.

My motivation isn't a moral crusade for justice, but the understanding that our ship won't just right herself. We have to take determined action.

As has been mentioned, setting our lame ducks free would be a good way of facilitating the adjustment we need without risk of lowering standards. If you’re worried that the quality of new women candidates is low, put them to the safe seats that already have low quality sitting MPs.

[Sean Fear]

"It seems to me that the ideological and intellectual case against any form of positive discrimination is overwhelming, but the political argument in favour of it for the tory party, at this time, is equally overwhelming. "

That is the only argument that can be advanced in favour of this policy, Gareth, that it will (regardless of its flaws) enhance our popularity.

I can only say that I have seen no credible evidence that this form of positive discrimination actually enhances the electoral appeal of those who engage in it. Since men and women are roughly equally represented in the electorate, the small number of women who are likely to vote for a candidate because she's a woman will be offset by the small number of men who vote the other way.

[Ted]

meant "irritated"

[Will]

Agreed Annabel - I have every faith in your association to stand up to any interference and I know Colne Valley quite well.

Most associations, like yours, just want to choose the best candidate available regardless of gender, hopefully with local connections. They know the seat best and know what is needed there.

A gold list combined with a target of selecting at least 20 women from the first 35 seats does nothing to help this.

[Sean Fear]

"Sean, so do you believe that the next say 30 selections would have produced a "fair" result without CCHQ interference? "

If by "fair" you mean that the outcome of the 30 selections would have reflected the demographic profile of the United Kingdom, then I think the answer to your question is probably "no".

If by "fair" you mean it would have reflected the demographic profile of those who wish to be full time Conservative politicians, then I think the answer is "quite possibly".

[Tex]

can't believe you lot have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.

Its extremey obvious where this has come from!

Look at the names on the distribution list. they've been looking for a fight with the "traditional" wing for some time now but the change is so cosmetic nobody knows what they stand for.

So leak an internal e-mail to your core audience and sit back and enjoy your false "struggle"

best to treat this with the contemot it deserves. That's what everybody did the first time (the Conservative party is changing mark I) when Cummings tried all this.

[Sean Fear]

"There arent enough women at the top of FTSE 100 companies - should we have some just for the sake of it"

I've a better idea. Too few women are brain surgeons. If we were to introduce a rule that 60% of women who applied to be brain surgeons were passed, and 80% of men who wished to be brain surgeons were failed (regardless of the abilities of either sex) then we could redress that imbalance.

[a-tracy]

Couldn't they pick the best male candidate and the best female candidate that applied for each constituency that is up for grabs and then hold a local primary to see who can get their vote out.

If you had two of the best candidates then it doesn't matter which one wins as far as the party is concerned but at least its democracy and not another version of state control.

[Ted]

Sean

On the individual basis I dislike affirmative action/positive discrimination. I do not believe that on a constituency basis people are more or less likely to vote for a woman than a man.

However I do believe a parliamentary party of mainly white professional men suffers an electoral disadvantage. I do think it shows underlying discrimination as IMHO I think if we were a more open party to women and minority groups we would have more of them coming forward. I could be wrong but its a bit chicken and egg - if you think you are going to be rejected do you put in the time & effort? because those groups think they are going to be rejected we see more white men applying making it look more biased and therefore putting off more women & others.

I'd like to think its a one-off / short term exercise to break this circle because I don't like centralised fixing. I'd like everyone to have the same chance. But I don't think this party will have the range of views and opinions that we need both in its membership or in parliament unless we take some corrective action.

[Will]

Ted - " I do believe a parliamentary party of mainly white professional men suffers an electoral disadvantage "

That's all three parties in trouble then.

[michael mcgough]

Pity the poor female with only two GCSEs.What are her chances.
White,male,heterosexual,bright,high acheiving,able bodied what chance have you-except as parish councillors?

[Henry Cook]

Actually, on the FTSE 100 comment, there is a serious problem concerning discrimination against women in the business world. For example many women are paid less than men for doing exactly the same job - this is a disgrace and undermines any claim we make to be a fair, democratic and liberal society. Sexism in business is a problem, full stop.

If a Conservative government is to attempt to change the situation, it must show that it not only supports equal rights for women, but that it also actively encourages women to take a leading role. The A list does this and so should be supported.

[verulamgal]

What a load of nonsense,typical of 'the Heir tof Blair'! Blair's babes have not exactly been a rip roaring success, so of course, Boy Wonder copies him

I totally disagree with positive discrimination in any field. The choice should always rest on the candidate's ability to do the job,and nothing more.

Do we really want the Conservative benches (I did not say Government, note) packed with 'Dave's Dolly Birds' after the election?

Our greatest peace time,( Lincolnshire GRAMMAR SCHOOL educated,) PM succeeded without positive discrimination If today's precious women are half as good as Maggie was, they too will suceed regardless.

[Jon White]

Verulamgal:

That is the most sensible post of this whole sorry mess. Well said. But no less than I would expect from a person (of EITHER gender) who is (presumably, from your screen name) from St. Albans!

(and greatest PM full stop, not just peacetime)

[Rick]

In fact I believe over half medical school intake are women these days?

More like 75% which was why there was a shortage of doctors since women did not want to work the 1990 Contract or do out-of-hours and so many becae part-timers which means two or three doctors are needed for one FTE

[Rick]

Lincolnshire GRAMMAR SCHOOL

I thought it was South Kesteven Girls' Grammar School........................now Issac Newton from just south of Grantham went to The King's School there

[Rick]

"There arent enough women at the top of FTSE 100 companies - should we have some just for the sake of it"

Sean please don't float daft ideas past Cameron - he's likely now to visit Sweden where they have done just this

[Suggestion]

Mark Fulford, I agree with you. Sean Fear, usually very accrate, is wrong here. Women are put off by a party with a reputation for selecting Tory boys. 17 women vs 181 men. That is a problem even if the CH regular anti-Cameron crowd do not see it.

In his first speech as leader Cameron spoke of ening the scandal of no Tory women MPs. He's been strong and constant on the issue. And Sean, like me you are political betting regular. You know Cameron's and the Tory rise in the polls have mostly been driven by women.

Women in the last election abandoned the Tories for the first time ever, right? Now they are coming back. A commitment to redress a 17 vs 181 imbalance is part of that.

40% of women were selected to fight seats for us at the last GE.... in UNwinnable seats, of course.

That's discrimination and like Mark says you have to correct the ballast.

[Suggestion]

Also I think you should calm down and see who makes it. I am certain that at the next election it'll be about fifty-fifty in the winnable seats.

[Richard]

"If a Conservative government is to attempt to change the situation, it must show that it not only supports equal rights for women, but that it also actively encourages women to take a leading role."

Or maybe the Tories should uphold the radical suggestion that it isn't the Government's business how companies choose to hire people? Freedom of association etc. Would also cut a lot of red tape. If people don't approve of a company's hiring practices they can boycott it.

[Tasha]

I have briefly scanned through the comments made and as a woman who has worked for the party I want to make some points.

We have to remember that the female vote is key to winning elections in this country and currently, as Will pointed out only 17 out of 181 MPs are women. This is appalling and whilst it would be great to have a meritocratic process to bring more women on board, equally we don't have the time to engage in what would be a lengthy process. We need to make the benches look more like the nation we want to represent or we won't win the next election. And that is what it’s all about.

Also there are no senior women in the organisation either within the leader's office or in the party organisation. To me, this is as bad as our tiny number of female MPs but I live in hope that this will be resolved.

It will not just be candidates who will be key to winning the next election but also our policies, which must reflect the needs of British men and women. If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny that we only had our first childcare policy at the last election.

I firmly believe in meritocracy and I do not want to be hired or promoted because of my gender but because I am the best person for the job. However, at this stage when the numbers are already so skewed and with the next election only 4 years away, we must adopt drastic measures. There are many talented women in the wings who will be more than able to rise to this challenge.

So from me at least, a big hurrah to all those who were in the meeting. And to the those who feel a bit left out, talent and ambition will always get you there. It’s about staying the course.

We must remember that are only goal is to win the next election. To do that we must have gender, ethnic and professional variety in our candidates - male and female. Changes this profound demand serious action.

To me, results that make the party look more representative of the nation it wishes to govern can only be a good thing.

[Chad]

"To me, results that make the party look more representative of the nation it wishes to govern can only be a good thing."

Whereas in reality, superficial changes that aim to make the party look more representative rather than actually be more representative are built on sand.

Sure, I can understand that if you don't want to actually engage communities to bring about equal opportunity as B2L pledges but want to give the appearance of doing do, then positive discrimination fits the CamCon way perfectly.

We must remember that are only goal is to win the next election.
Perhaps, but unfortunately, the day after you have to govern the country for five years. Voting in a superficial unconservative Tory Party will end in a one-term disaster and likely end in an even longer wilderness period next time.

For those of us who want a (small c) conservative government that will govern for decades, it is about much more than simply winning the next election no matter what the cost,particulary when we believe a values-based approach is more likely to actually win in the first place.

Local Primaries resolve both the issues with associations not being fair and avoids central interference. However Local Primaries have the danger of electing the one kind of diversity that central-control freaks will fight to avoid; diversity of thought.

[James Maskell]

Tasha, I dont think anyone here has any problem with the system being fair. I have no problems with having to go up against a woman for the candidacy in a seat. But what I, and I would suspect the majority of people who read this site, object to is positive discrimination which is more concerned with getting thre numbers right than getting the best candidates possible in those key marginals.

I object to the idea that women should be given an inherent advantage in their candidacies because there are fewer than men. This is not fair at all. Either this party believes in equality of outcome (in which case this Policy is to be advanced) or they believe in meritocracy (in which case this Policy should be dropped). They cannot be married.

Ive moaned about a lot of things Camerons come out with, but this breaks the horses back. Its so unfair and sexist its insane. How do I explain to the local residents that my Party thinks that women should be treated as more important than men simply because there are less of them, without alienating every single person I see?

Associations should be free to select their candidates. If the issue in this is that too many women are being turned away, then strengthen the Appeals process to allow a fair hearing. I cannot find words strong enough to condemn this.

[Gareth]

I think Ted has hit the nail on the head Sean. It's less a question of whether voters in individual seats view the party more favourably because there is a female candidate, than whether the voters' view of the Conservative Party as an institution will change because the overall number of women candidates and MP's has undergone a step change.

*One* of the problems with our image (and there are many) is that we are viewed as an overwhelmingly white, male party. Given, in particular, that the Labour party no longer fits that stereo type, I think we must take radical steps to alter it for ourselves also.

As I said above, ideologically, the move is indefensible - tories are meritocrats, which is why we're not socialists. The party has though, shown itself to be institutionally incapable of practising what it preaches and the time has come for a dose of unpalatable medicine.

[johnC]

I think Cameron is addressing a problem which doesn't exist. Being a woman didn't stop Margaret Thatcher, nor would it stop any woman in the party today with the right qualities and abilities. In the last Tory Government there were several women in important posts (Gillian Shepherd, Virginia Bottomley, Lynda Chalker) who at the time seemed generally more competent and appealing than their male colleagues. The system seemed to work for them. As has been said above, this move could be counter-productive in that constituency associations could resent the pressure evidently being imposed on them by CCHQ and deliberately reject a woman who might otherwise have been considered.

[John Hustings]

Our current crop of women MPs aren't amazingly impressive. If they're the ones who got through the supposedly discriminatory system, I doubt the quality of the ones turned away was too high.

I hate to see what the next lot will look like.

[James Maskell]

The point about Thatchers a good one but probably ignores a whole lot of other people who didnt get a shot due to biased questioning and a selection process that perhaps felt that women shouldnt be in politics.

As Ive said before, I have no problem whatsoever with women being given an equal shot to men. I would be happy to go up against a woman in the chase for a selection spot. But this new system is biased against men and is simply reversing the perceived bias against women into an inherent and tangible bias against men, which cannot be justified.

[Sean Fear]

Gareth et al,

I could accept this if there were evidence that it was boosting our support. But with three polls in a row showing us on 33%, 34% and 30%, I'd have to say that the boost just isn't there.

[Suggestion]

Sean, come on. You know the 30% poll is worthless. You also know that the broad Tory range has moved up under Cameron. You further know that most of this support is coming from women. And lastly, you know that support for Cameron and his agenda is greater than for the Conservatives as a brand.

Redressing the 181-17 balance through positive action has been part of that Cameron brand since his first speech as leader.

[Michael McGowan]

Gareth: the "unpalatable medicine" should consist of jettisoning the significant number of consummate and mediocre insiders who currently occupy much of the Tory benches....and who will fight a ferocious rearguard action to protect their vested interests. Replacing them with another cohort of insiders cloned in the image and likeness of the leader is not a solution.

[Sean Fear]

"Sean, come on. You know the 30% poll is worthless."

Why? MORI are a reputable pollster.

"You also know that the broad Tory range has moved up under Cameron."

Really? The range has been at 30-35% over the past few weeks. Modernisers used to call that "flatlining".

"You further know that most of this support is coming from women. "

Since our overall support is not increasing, it really doesn't matter where it is coming from.

"And lastly, you know that support for Cameron and his agenda is greater than for the Conservatives as a brand"

Which is why only 21% of Yougov's respondents want him to be Prime Minister, compared to 33% who say they'll vote Conservative.

[Michael McGowan]

Sean, how admirably off-message?!

[Hmmmmm]

There is only one fair way to make this happen and that it to make all sitting MPs face the same process - everyone has to go through competitive reselection - all those bed blockers and under performers whove been granted a job for life, need to face some competition if cameron is really serious about change....any less and its total hypocrisy.

[Hmmmm]

And Annabel I have absolutely no problem at all with efforts being made to increase the representation of women in politics. I think the A list is tactically wrong for all sorts of reasons, but I dont have a principled problem with it. I do however have a problem with the underhand tactics Opus Dave seems to indicate using - once you have a group of equally rated candidates, why cant it be a fair fight? What does it say about constituency associations that they have to be intimidated into voting for a woman? And how does DC expect to have the support of the 400 or so active and committed men on the list? Two wrongs dont make a right, discriminating against men now is as bad as previous perceived discrimination against women - only this time is being institutionalised - which makes it worse.

[James Maskell]

Well said Hmmmm. I do disagree that there isnt a principled problem with this. In fact thats the biggest problem I have is on the principle of meritocracy. You earn your position by being the best applicant at the time. Being a specific demographic must never be the qualification. This goes for every seat, not just the key marginals.

[Jack Stone]

The comment by Richard only shows one thing that we may not be the nasty party anymore but we still have nasty people in it.
Sometimes people are unjustly discriminated against and because of this we should give those an helping hand to get into Parliament so our party in is representative of todays Britain there.
For us not too have any disabled people in Parliament is a disgrace or do some people still believe the disabled should be locked away in homes. It seems from some peoples comments they do.

[Suggestion]

Sean, this is disingenuous. I follow your local election bits on PoliticalBetting, you post on that site daily. You know Smithson's analysis of the polls, shared by the whole site: Mori is worthless because it doesn't use proper weighting; Cameron has pushed the polls from the range 30-33 to 33-37; voters respond more favourably to the 'Cameron Conservative' brand than the plain Tory one; the additional support for the Tories is coming from women.

You know all that.

Women waverers will not vote for a party that has 17 women MPs to 181 males, that had 40% of its candidates female at the last election - but only chose them for unwinnable seats! It looks sexist, because it is sexist. Priority for a handful of women in a handful of seats is hardly a very dramatic way to redress the balance. Those 181 men, plus a bunch of new ones, will still be there and we will do well to break 50 women MPs which still leaves a 75% male Parliamentary party.

The sky really isn't falling over this.

[Suggestion]

Here is Mike Smithson's relevant analysis on how the Tory vote share increases if the questions asked involve Cameron, from politicalbetting.com

"The polling evidence of the past few months seems to support the Maude view.

In almost every survey since the Cameron’s election on December 6th the Tories have recorded a higher share when asked who they would vote for if it was a Cameron-led Tory party against Brown-led Labour.

Initially my thoughts on this were that it was bad for the Chancellor - that somehow the public were moving away from Labour’s leader-apparent. Now I think that this has got almost nothing to do with Brown at all.

These questions produce a Cameron bounce because of the way the poll is conducted. When you present the option of the Tory party alone people do not always link it with the new leader. But when you ask the Cameron-Brown voting intention question people are reminded who the Tory leader is and have a different view.

These are the uplifts Cameron got the last time this question was asked by the main pollsters:

Populus had a Cameron-Tory party scoring 40% compared with 35% for his party;
ICM had it at 37% when the same poll had the Tories on 34%;
YouGov’s Cameron figure was 39% - one point up on what that particular poll found for the Tories."

[malcolm]

'Women waverers will not vote for a party that has 17 women MPs'.Does anyone have any evidence at all for this?I'm not saying it's wrong it's just that I have never met a woman whilst out canvassing who has EVER complained that the reason they won't be voting Conservative has anything to do with the number of female Tory MPs.

[Suggestion]

Malcolm,

Yes; I have the evidence of the last general election and the contrast in the current poll ratings.

In the last general election, women deserted the Tories for the first time in its history. More men voted Tory.

Since Cameron's election, the polling boost in Tory fortunes has come from women. (Sean Fear knows this. For more, http://www.politicalbetting.com).

Cameron's very first speech, which got universal coverage, promised to end the scandal of no Tory women MPs - under 10%. The Tory party's ratings among women went up since then, accounting for our improved poll standing. With men we are unchanged since the GE approximately.

This is hard national evidence rather than doorstep stuff. Some reasons that people vote are hard to quantify. Sometimes it is just a sense of liking the guy. Women like what they see in Cameron. His campaign for more women MPs is a big part of that.

[Richard]

"The comment by Richard only shows one thing that we may not be the nasty party anymore but we still have nasty people in it"

I was upholding a minimal state view supported by the Libertarian Alliance - hardly a "nasty" organisation.

But we all know the real reason you're targetting me is because I keep pointing out you're a UKIP supporter trying to stir up trouble.

[Richard]

Or were you referring to my tongue-in-cheek comment about the underrepresentation of hermaphrodites? It wasn't supposed to be a serious point but then I was responding to a post that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously - yours.

[malcolm]

Suggestion,I don't wish to be pedantic but I would suggest that you don't have any real evidence at all.The fact that women derseted the Tories in 2005 could have been for a myriad of reasons not the lack of female MPs,equally the fact that (a few more) are considering voting for us now may well be for any number of reasons.Has anybody asked them?

[Sean Fear]

"Sean, this is disingenuous. I follow your local election bits on PoliticalBetting, you post on that site daily. You know Smithson's analysis of the polls, shared by the whole site:"

Mike Smithson's analysis is not shared by the whole site. Not that that is relevant to this particular debate.

"Mori is worthless because it doesn't use proper weighting; "

MORI were as accurate as any other pollster in their eve of poll prediction. I'll bet you weren't rubbishing them when they put us on 40% at the start of the year.

"Cameron has pushed the polls from the range 30-33 to 33-37;

No. MORI put us on 30%, ICM on 34%, Populus on 34%, and Yougov on 33%. That is the current range.

"voters respond more favourably to the 'Cameron Conservative' brand than the plain Tory one;"

So why does the percentage favouring him as Prime Minister lag the percentage intending to vote Conservative?

"the additional support for the Tories is coming from women.

You know all that."

Er, no, not really.