All women short-lists (AWS) have become a common mechanism across the
Labour Party in advance of choosing our prospective parliamentary candidates
(PPCs) for the 2015 general election. And I think they’re a bad idea.
This is hardly revolutionary, and as a white, Oxford
educated man in a professional job it probably comes as no surprise that this
is my conclusion. I'm not so stupid to think that, however elegant my
reasoning, this conclusion is perhaps the result of some unseen sub-conscious
bias. This shows why it is important that our elected representatives are
actually representative of the society who chooses them – only in that way can these
deep-seated sub-conscious decisions be exposed to healthy scrutiny.
But indulge me. By way of atonement, let me start with why I
think most of the reasons used in opposition to AWS are a load of claptrap.
Firstly, that they are sexist in and of themselves because they exclude men. Clearly
this is confused, as what’s being tackled is innate inequality on a macro
scale, not on the micro level of an individual constituency. It doesn't seem like an
excessive tweak of the system to lead to an undeniably worthwhile result.
Secondly, that they diminish the desire and ability of women
to contest ‘open’ short-lists. This does appear to be true, but the fact is that
they weren't winning them anyway, certainly not in a radical enough fashion to
affect the gender change that voters deserve to see. Of course women should be
given extra help to compete in those open selections, and every attempt should
be made to make sure that ‘open’ short-lists are men’s short-lists – or that
quotas (such as at least one female candidate in every local authority ward)
are seen as all that has to be done. But frankly, it doesn't really seem like
an either/or scenario.
Thirdly, that there are other groups who we should be more
bothered about. We need more ethnic minority candidates representing their
communities. We need more local candidates in constituencies, speaking for the
communities they know. The representation of women is, however, in a slightly
different league. They are a much more clearly identifiable group, much more so
than ‘ethnic minority’, class or LGBT definitions. Most importantly, and
obviously, women are not a minority grouping – they are 50% of the population. Of
course we must fight hard to bring candidates from the communities that they
represent, but if we can’t do right by an under represented 50% of the population,
what hope is there elsewhere?
Class is a more troublesome issue. If the Labour Party is
not about bringing forward more representation of ordinary working people, not
just policies in their name, what are we about? The working classes are the
bulk of the population by any count – if not 50% then a distinct plurality. Of
course, there are definition issues, but it is clear that working class
communities are not sending forth the candidates that they should, and that the
whole of society needs.
However, there is something very ugly about the way that
women short-lists are held up as being a further barrier to this – middle class
women preventing working class men from positions to which they are always
denied. Our party has always been dominated by the middle classes, like any other,
and all-women short-lists are no more likely to produce this result than any
other. There are much more fundamental things that the party needs to be doing
internally and in terms of its politics for a better society to combat the
inherent and worsening exclusion of voices from working class communities. What
is clear and simple is that we are all still disadvantaged by the lack of women
representatives across public life. It is not an either/or scenario. To answer
the most blunt pessimist on this issue: why not have a fair gender split among
middle class candidates, if that’s what we get anyway?
My hearty defence (or, at times, relative ambivalence to)
AWS, is the lead-up to why I do believe that they are unfair: they fail to
challenge the inherent bias within the Party towards men fast enough. At their
core, they depend on natural wastage, meaning that an older (disproportionately
male) group of Labour MPs in safe seats are never challenged, still remaining
in post. I do not understand why it is right that a 60 year old man, chosen
decades ago is more protected under these rules than a 30 year old man who
seeks selection today. The latter, rightly, has to wait for a social injustice
to be rectified. The man himself, who is part of that injustice, can pootle on
until he retires, leaving his constituency to decide on whether his successor
should be a woman pretty much when the sitting MP feels like it.
When we talk about the inherent importance of more women in
parliament, irrespective of class or community, it is because women in and of
themselves bring something important to the process which has been lacking. It
will continue to be lacking until the make-up of the current group of
representatives, who are part of the problem (although not intentionally) are
shaken up and distorted.
What the Party needs could be a requirement for all MPs to
re-apply through open selection after three general election victories, and
impose all-women short-lists on a requisite number until the balance of
candidates gender is right. Although this is still a gradualist answer, it
would hit many MPs quickly, and have the added benefits of feeding into other agendas,
like the promotion of local candidates, and the need for MPs to really,
meaningfully connect with the local parties to whom they owe their position.
More radically, we could simply have open selections of all
parliamentary seats, expecting at least 40% of each category (winnable,
marginal and non-target seats) to be women. If open selections do not present
the correct result, then either by lot, by service or by size of majority, sitting
MPs could be deposed and replaced with women candidates.
Both options would then require a mechanism to ensure we don’t
just slide back to the habits of the past. One would hope, however, that a system
which fairly represents women, would protect them intrinsically and these
fail-safes would be an academic exercise.
I'm in favour of more actions to increase the
representativeness of our representatives – and it seems to me that the first
option could, both through its mechanism and result, bring a better politics to
our party. The second option is harsh, but fair – and would close the whole
gender debate on the symbolic level of women in representative positions. Then
we can move on to the stuff that’s worth contesting.
