Theresa May may...

"Are we really saying there is no prospect of a woman leading any of the political parties in the near future?"

That was the question posed by Theresa May in a speech she made yesterday to the Adelaide Group of senior business women. Was it a simple statement about the underepresentation of women in parliament – or was it the beginnings of her own positioning for a future leadership bid?

She also proposed an ‘A-list’ for the Tories’ top 100 target seats. Defending her belief that fifty of the people on that ‘A-list’ should be women, she said:

”Now some people don't like these kind of gender-specific targets. Either they believe it patronises women who would reach the top without a leg up. Or they think it threatens to dilute the quality of candidates we offer by shoehorning in women who are not up to the job. Well I think there is nothing patronising about making the professional judgement that we will win more seats, attract more support, take better decisions, and, ultimately, form a better government, if we have a more even split of male and female faces running our party. And as for those who say we would risk diluting the quality of our candidates and MPs… What planet are you on?! Do you seriously believe that the Conservative Party cannot find 50 females of the highest quality to stand as candidates at the next election? If we cannot find 50 grade-A, top-class women who want to offer themselves to the British people as Conservative candidates at the next election then we should probably all give up now!”

Without supporting a face-deep kind of diversity Mrs May believes that most female candidates have a number of advantages over men. She emphasised listening skills, a less macho approach to political communication and greater experience of things that men don‘t know much about.

Mrs May, a former Party Chairman, also spoke up for the Tory rank-and-file membership:

"I'm worried about the signal that this gives about the sort of party we are, and the sort of party we are going to be, if we can't even trust our own membership to have a say in the election of the party leader. What does that say about how much of a voice we are going to give to the voters?"

Comments

[James Hellyer]

"I'm worried about the signal that this gives about the sort of party we are, and the sort of party we are going to be, if we can't even trust our own membership to have a say in the election of the party leader. What does that say about how much of a voice we are going to give to the voters?"

I'm worried about the sort of signal it gives when you don't trust the party members to pick their own candidates, Theresa. Can we have a little consistency please!

[Sean Fear]

The principal objection to any A-List is that it simply favours party hacks, whose friends get them onto the A-List.

No one, male or female, has the *right* to be selected to fight a safe seat.

[Edward]

I think the way to do it is to say there are say 100 central candidates. They can compete for seats where local candidates are given a bye to the final as it where.

This would promote the very best of our bright young things, including a lot of women, as well as giving people every right and opportunity to fight for their home seat.

[michael kors outlet handbags]

good articles