A couple of bits of info that may be of interest…

Although there is still a huge amount to do, we have made progress in recent years – at the last election 30% of our new MPs were women.

In terms of our target seats, the party is always reluctant to publish a list for obvious political reasons, but if we take the crude swing to win figures, we find:

40% women candidates in our top 10 targets
33% women candidates in our top 30 targets
30% women candidates in our top 50 targets

We are also making headway in held seats. Previously our record in selecting women for held seats where the MP retires was very poor. Of 13 retirals in 2001 and 2005, only 1 woman was selected (Susan Kramer) – she may well have been the first (no doubt some people with longer memories will know if back in the mists of time any of our few women MPs had taken over from an incumbent).

This time round, there are 6 vacancies in held seats from 5 MP retirals (boundary changes mean Matthew Taylor’s retiral creates two held seats) – of these 6 seats, 4 women have been selected (Sarah Carr in Hereford, Claire Kelley in Harrogate, Terrye Teverson in Truro & Falmouth, Karen Gillard in SE Cornwall).

So some causes for optimism too!

Jo

The elephant in the room is surely the near-obsessive amount of time that Lib Dem politicians and would be politicians are expected to spend getting elected.

This is the sting in the tail to the mantra of “where we work we win” and the philosophy of pavement politics.

In June 2007 I wrote a report for CGB outlining some practical suggestions for attracting and retaining more women PPCs. I sent the report to both leadership contenders and submitted an abridged version to the Bones Party Reform Commission. One year on, despite valiant efforts by Jo Swinson and others, there has been little tangible progress.

Every quantitative and qualitative study I have seen of why LibDem women are not putting themselves forward as PPCs identifies perceived incompatibility with family life as the single most important issue.

Some posts above rightly point out that childcare shouldn’t be an exclusively female issue. I share that view.

However, putting aside utopian visions and looking at what happens in practice, we can see that the impact of starting a family is more detrimental in career terms for women because of time off around childbearing/ breastfeeding. Because maternity leave is not transferable to fathers, in most families the mother becomes the primary child-carer in the early months of a baby’s life, and this pattern continues long after maternity leave ends. The reality of life with young children (as I well know, having had to make 5 trips to see paediatric consultants in the last 10 days) is that at least one parent MUST put the children before all else. In most families the parent who does this is the mother (often for pragmatic reasons, such as higher male earnings).

The upshot of this in terms of practical action for our party is to understand that while family-friendly working practices potentially benefit both men and women, in practice they will disproportionately help women.

So, if we are serious about increasing female parliamentary representation and lowering our female attrition rate, supportive, flexible family-friendly working is not an optional extra- it is an essential pre-requisite.

Enlightened businesses adapt their working practices and understand that taking time off to have and care for children doesn’t make women any less effective when they return to work. It’s time Liberal Democrats did the same.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you a bit on this one. To an extent it depends on exactly what you mean by maternity leave. My comment was based on the legal right of “Bye, don’t expect to see me for 6 months!” Turning up to three or four meetings then is not quite maternity leave. However, I do think that it’s not solved by just turning up to a few full council meetings, there are group meetings, where local insight of as many as possible is needed to make sure things are fully considered, and many more points than that. Having seen our Party Whip on pins because three members were not present a couple of minutes before a meeting (traffic), it is problematic, but he hasn’t had a heart attack yet!

Ultimately the success of the Lib Dems is because they are willing to work as a team and accept that some bring different skills to others. We all have rights, but with them come responsibilities, and a key one is not to demand our rights just because we have the right, when in reality we may be imposing excessively on the liberties of others. A team may be able to get by for six months without its star goalkeeper, but to be able to do this needs a good stand in; teamwork; and a willingness to work for each other. If you then demand (because it is your right) to be put straight back in the team, even if the stand in is found to be better, then you may not be a team player after all. Again it is a question of judgement; we all have our strengths and weaknesses. It’s how the members of the team work together and support each other that will determine our success.

Kevin’s points are very good, and I agree totally. We are in danger of becoming a tick box party rather than one that trusts its principles and the judgement of its members.

The situation is as absurd as one I was told of long ago where a snap general election was called and a local party official in one constituency decided that we would not put up a candidate, as there was not enough time to give the notice demanded in the constitution to call the meetings to select a candidate! Thankfully the national party found out quickly enough to effect an appropriate attitude realignment.

Ultimately life is full of compromises. Some will sacrifice lots of time to build a base of support in an area over several years. I must admit Jo’s comment about “they are far too sensible …” gives me a lot to worry about. Once we start thinking people who work hard in tough seats are not sensible, and that ‘good’ people can be easily identified (by their lack of hard work??)… Well it comes back to judgement, some people make decisions quickly. I prefer to support someone who I can see has walked the walk and not just wants a free ride into a seat that others have worked hard to make winnable, but then my Labour MP was parachuted in at a recent General Election, so I can view it from a totally dispassionate viewpoint.

In that case they would only need to turn up to full council – ie 6-8 times a year so nowhere near as problematic as you suggest.

1) Family issues are not just women’s issues

Jennie put this very astutely in point number 2, but the issue that has been missed is that sacrficing time with your family has always been a requirement of being an MP. As it largely has for being a council leader, CEO of a major company, a top barrister or any major time demanding job.
The gender issue only comes into play because less women have been prepared to make those sacrifices. Changing this is about a national cultural change. We can make mitigating measures as a party, but the real difference here is in work culture.
On this point, I applaud the maternity cover in Southwark.

2) We shouldn’t waste our time with tokenism

A bit of a personal interest here on this one. Tomorrow will see the results of the Wales Euro list selection, in which I am a candidate. The process should have been completed in August last year. It was delayed because no woman came forward; then it was delayed again for the same reason; and then again. Eventually a woman came forward but I’m sure she wouldn’t be offended by my saying that it is not a key priority for her and she has not campaigned hard. It would be a suprise then if she comes top of the list tomorrow.
My controversial statement here then is that I would rather have the men on this list have had an extra 10 months to campaign than there be a woman on the list just for the sake of it.

3) Becoming a Lib Dem MP is difficult

Contrary to the impression given by some above, we do not have rafts of safe seats that we can parachute “good people” into – be they men or women. Jo suggested that good people are too “sensible and busy” to waste their time trying to win in a difficult seat. If we run a system where these “sensible” good people (ie, ones who don’t want to campaign) into supposed “safe seats” then perhaps we will achieve gender balance in Parliament. But for me, gender balance of 10 women out of 20 MPs is a false achievement.
We need more MPs and they need to come from people who are talented and prepared to work hard. Whether you can do that and have a family is questionable, but as an expectant father and agent in a developing seat, I shall report back in 5-10 years on how the politics and family are developing.
Whilst I absolutely want more women Lib Dem MPs, I also just want more LIb Dem MPs.
So my contravertial summary here then is that I would rather see 30 women Lib Dem MPs in a group of 150 than 30 in a group of 60.
The suggestion made above is that we won’t be able to find 150 people with the talent and commitment to become MPs. If we can’t find 150 liberal minded talented individuals from a population of 60million then we might as well pack up and go home now.

Anyway, that’s enough from me this morning.

I presume someone stood in for her, or did we just leave the officers to do what they wanted. The question is not whether maternity leave (or any other form of leave for that matter) by a senior politician can be overcome, it usually can. However in a situation where a party holds a majority of one it would be problematic. The question could be the extent to which it is fair to impose on someone else to stand in for them and then, presumably, demand or at least expect one’s original job back, particularly if the stand in had made a better job of it.

This lies at the heart of this problem as well. I’m am NOT a fan of the GBTF which always seems to me to be there to promote the interests of a small group of women rather than women in general, I’m afraid.

Until the GBTF works with local parties to recruit more female members,and works with them to ensure we have more women parish, district and county councillors who can provide an experienced pool of potential candidates for parliament we will always struggle to meet any reasonable (or intelligent) target. Like I say, we keep falling at the hurdle because we are in too much of a hurry to adopt a long-term strategy.

The same thing applies to Ethnic Minority LD’s and if someone ever gets around to it, ‘non-university educated, non-middle class LD’s’.

By the way any female candidate who would like to work hard over 10 years to win a seat, backed by a well-financed, highly professional and active constituency association, let me know.

In local government Lib Dem controlled Southwark a cabinet member recently took six months maternity leave and the earth did not cave in as a result!

Looking forward to a day when none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or maternity.

Ruth x

I’m sorry if I offended you, perhaps the use of the word ‘languishing’ was a bit too emotive.

Look, hats off to you for doing what you’re doing and it is clearly valuable. From the sound of it the work you’re doing rings all your bells and you’ve got yourself into a position that you’re happy with. People have different drivers. And in any case, Rob is not talking about getting more women to be PPCs he’s talking about more women MPs. There is a difference.

For example, and I don’t know the answer to this and at the last meeting I went to the GBTF didn’t either (this may have changed as I don’t get to go very often), how many of that 31% are in target seats? How many have a hope of actually being elected?

If the aim is to get over 30% of our PPC to be women then we’re doing well but that is not the same as getting over 30% of our MPs or other elected representatives to be women.

Mark, I do take your point about experience and for sure, even experience in the most no hope seat ever (and I should know) is valuable.

However, members expectations both of the candidate and their experience could indirectly discriminate against women both wanting to be a target seat candidate and getting selected as one.

Taking the subject of experience, it seems to me that we run a system at the moment where the candidate seems to me to the be all and all of the campaign. If you cannot be a jack of all trades then you’re done for. However, they are just part of a team and don’t need to know everything.

If you take the example of by election candidates, sometimes they haven’t stood before but because they have the support of an experienced agent etc, etc it isn’t deemed to be a show stopper. I think a good organiser is just as important as a candidate. So, in my ideal world it would be possible to field a candidate in a target seat who wasn’t much of an organiser say, but had of experience with the media.

Perhaps candidates and organisers should run on a joint tickets? Rather like the president and the VP?

We need to be as careful about the organiser as we do about the candidate. It seems obvious to me that what makes a good MP can be different from what makes a good Lib dem campaigner…we may not be able to find 150 people who are both! We may not be able to find 75 people who are female, who are both and have the time or inclination to fulfill the traditional job desciption of a target seat PPC but would make excellent MPs.

So we have a choice, we can either keep stamping our feet and wishing women could be more like our male PPCs or we could look at changing how we deliver the resources required to elect an MP so that more women are albe and attracted to taking part.

It is a complex problem and whilst the numbers game is a start it will not, on its own, get us where we should be in terms of the inclusive organisation we claim as liberals we are.

I do demur on one point though. Whilst we should select on the basis of merit, our Local Parties tend to look for experience, especially in target seats. Therefore, if anyone attempts to pursue winnable seats immediately, they run into the experience barrier. Local activists are loathe to commit to years of hard work for a candidate who lacks what they perceive as ‘real-life experience’ – a factor which many members raise as a concern about the candidate approval system.

Therefore, if there isn’t a winnable seat available, why not run in an unwinnable one? Do a good job and your reputation will spread, giving you a platform for selection in that winnable seat next time.

I will give a warning though. If we’re really serious about achieving this goal, time is short. Given that there are just over 200 women on the approved list now, and that a number of them are only interested in specific seats (a non-gender specific issue but an issue nonetheless) or are on the list because their Local Party needed a candidate for a seat where we aren’t likely to win soon, you either need to get the rest to run, almost regardless of geography, or recruit a lot more women than we currently have.

And yet, you can’t rush this. Pushing people to attend an assessment day before they’re ready can do a lot of damage, especially given that failure will exclude a candidate from re-applying for at least a year. Some of that development and encouragement needs to be done first.

So, Rob, good luck with the quest. As a member of English Candidates Committee, I’d rather not take sides in favour of a particular applicant, as I have a responsibility to all. If I can do anything practical to help though, I’d be game to contribute.

Sorry I mistook your plea for something else ie maternity leave which is understood as a now statuatory and legal mechanism which suggests 6 months/1 year off.

Apologies