Truss was promoted because, being a woman, this was put forward as making the Conservative Party more representative of the population. But apart from being a woman everything about her was the conventional stereotypical politician of the sort that made most people despise politicians. London metropolitan type, wealthy business background, time spent in a well-funded think-tank which pumps out stuff supporting the current political orthodoxy, was a councillor as part of the political career but did nothing worthwhile while she was (I live in the borough where she’s a councillor in the ward next to hers and had never heard of her before all this stuff about being PPC in Norfolk came up – good campaigner? Rubbish – zero-impact). Why on earth should putting her there make politics more representational than some plain-speaking real Norfolk chap? Sure, a plain-speaking real Norfolk gel would be even better – so why weren’t there any of those available?

The challenge, as has been said, really is to persuade more women to get approved and out themselves forward.

I do, however, find the suggestion “men can’t effectively represent women’s interests” slightly offensive.

I agree with you that the problem is in supply. I know a lot of local parties (mine included) which are not aware of diversity, which are very male-dominated, macho-cultured organisations. We don’t have a lot of female activists or executive members, most of our conference reps are similarly male. Our local party isn’t helping supply good quality female candidates to the wider party.

The diversity training I attended last conference, led by Issan Ghazni, was fantastic. It really helped me understand in a new way the benefits of diversity to my local party and useful tips to identify barriers to diversity and overcome them. It’s encouraged me to redouble my efforts to achieve diversity as a matter of practicality as well as principle.

That’s why I’m in favour of helping the people involved in the “supply” of candidates to learn more about the benefits of diversity. I think it will help solve the supply problem we all agree on, and hence I think it’s a good focus of action.

So do what I am doing – working hard with local members to increase the number of female and ethnic minority councillors at Parish, District and County level. That way we will have an increasing pool of people from these key categories with knowledge of the party, the confidence that comes from campaigning successfully and the experience of casework that will make them good PPC’s and good MP’s.

This is a campaigning party; a grassroots party. If we want to achieve a better balance we need to build from the bottom.

I’m no engineer, but I understand that buildings stand up better that way.

All the evidence suggests that the basic problem is not discrimination in the selection process – women candidates are selected in rough proportion to their numbers on the approved list.

Anders Hanson is right. It’s a supply problem. Not enough women are putting themselves forward for approval. That is where the focus of action should be.

I agree entirely that it isn’t exactly Liberal or Democratic to have no women on the shortlist, and it’s exactly the same point made by Jo Swinson on this website a few weeks ago: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-no-to-allmen-shortlists-16764.html

Basically, Lib Dems do select women as candidates, but it’s just that there aren’t enough women standing in the first place. All women shortlists won’t solve that. Something instead must be done to address the problem of why women aren’t putting their names forward.

I agree with you. Possible that I failed to make my point accurately!

If we can find a way that is an inherent “right” that fixes the problem then great and away we go but if we need to do something that involves balancing various degrees of wrongness there is inevitably going to be disagreement.

At the risk of turning this whole thread in to another argument about AWS, I think your two options are too simplistic. I actually think that many Lib Dems, (of which Jo Swinson and I are two), would actually agree with a third argument that an unbalanced parliamentary party is wrong but that there are more effective ways of solving it than AWS, and that none of those effective ways are wrong at all.

Really?

You may agree but HUGE proportion of LD’s don’t. Why I don’t you provide services to help out if you agree so much?Or is it a womans job best left to Lynn and Jo??

Great points Lynn.

For instance on AWS is reducing the choice of the electorate (a wrong) less important than gender imbalance (also a wrong).

The arguments come from the fact that some Lib Dems think AWS is the greater wrong and some think that an unbalanced Parliamentary Party is the greater wrong. Most people would agree that in an ideal world you would have neither!

We agree with you.

Now can you and Jo and the rest of GBTF go and preach to the unconverted and stop preaching at us.