There is quite a sisterhood in politics, a solidarity between women that transcends party. One of the major drivers of that is that we all have to put up with the same crap within our parties. Whether its under-representation, barriers to approval and selection as candidates, being talked over or dismissed in meetings or having our experiences of sexist behaviour minimised when we call them out, our experiences are strikingly similar. And if you are poor, from an ethnic minority or disabled, the barriers you face increase.

Scottish organisation Engender has laid that all out in a new report which aims to show the extent of “abuse, exclusion and bias” women face in the political system and it sets out how political parties can and must do better.

Our party is not immune to such behaviour, although there have been marked improvements in culture in the past 15 years or so.

So what problems do women face?

Women, particularly Black, minority ethnic and disabled women,face multiple compounding and entrenched barriers at each stage of the candidate journey, across all parties. Party processes continue to operate based on an imagined “default candidate” that is white, middle-class, male, and non-disabled. Only 35% of survey respondents felt their party genuinely prioritised diversity in candidate selection. Everyday sexism,including inappropriate comments and gendered stereotypes,remains commonplace across parties, with 24% of
selected candidates experiencing sexist language or bullying.

Specific barriers that this report explores,include:
▪ Lack of transparency, information and unclear processes
▪ Limited financial assistance
▪ Gaps in available guidance and formal support networks
▪ Caring responsibilities
▪ Accessibility needs
▪ Unclear expectations and feedback
▪ Decision-maker bias

The report also highlights the abusive political environment which can lead to women fearing for their safety and that of their family which is “contributing to a growing retention issue for women in politics.”

The report highlights how women with caring responsibilities are particularly adversely impacted:

When selecting candidates,parties can place disproportionate importance on “presenteeism”,disproportionately focussing on hours spent on party activities,rather than other candidate skills. This can disadvantage people with less free time due to caring responsibilities. This persists once candidates are selected and elected,negatively impacting women’s overall experience and likelihood of running again in future.

One woman told the researchers:

At one meeting where a couple of mums including me brought youngish children along, other members made their displeasure evident despite the children being well-behaved.

I and another officer bearer eventually had to stand down due to these problems,which meant that the profile of office bearers was people (mainly older) with no childcare responsibilities.

But these problems can be overcome with a bit of effort and understanding:

My campaign manager and team – volunteers!! – were extremely helpful and supportive for my caring responsibilities and we had a plan in place for if I had a caring crisis.

I like the layout of the report because in each section it puts, side by side, barriers and examples of good practice.

The report also highlighted the transport and financial problems faced by some candidates:

Candidates noted difficulties with travelling across large constituencies, and the logistical challenges this often presents. Very few respondents mentioned accessing financial support for travel or for any other purpose.

Where they did,this was usually provided via external organisations such as Inclusion Scotland or Elect Her.

I wonder if the way parties are funded is a factor in this. Rich businessmen are too often a source of campaign funds. Maybe we should actively seek funding from people who are prepared to help candidates with these issues.

One issue that I know that many women candidates have tried to raise repeatedly is candidate support before, during and after the campaign. Too often, immediately after the election, political parties just don’t bother to give exhausted and stressed candidates the support that they need to continue in the role. In this party, candidate wellbeing does not seem to be enough of a priority.

The report concludes:

Progress towards equality in our politics is uneven and remains fragile, and long-term commitment to using quotas and positive action mechanisms (PAMs) is fundamental to ensure that where gains are made,they are not lost. However, these measures must go hand-in-hand with long-term commitment from parties to tackle inequalities in their cultures, structures and processes at all levels. This includes focusing not just on topline figures and parliamentary
elections but also investing resources towards local politics and grassroots activities. This is the only way to ensure a sustainable and diverse pipeline of women candidates.

We know that when women’s voices are equally represented,this leads to higher quality decision making and better outcomes for women,their communities and society as a whole.

Through their role as gatekeepers,political parties must embrace their role as active agents of change and commit to building equitable structures and cultures where women can thrive.

The report contains much for our party to reflect on and change.

A word about comments:

Too often articles such as this attract a stream of comments from men who minimise the experience of women and are therefore clearly part of the problem. Such comments will find their way into the bin.

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social