X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Is sexism really stopping more women from becoming MPs?

10 January 2017

1:05 PM

10 January 2017

1:05 PM

The reliably irritating Women and Equalities Select Committee under its unfailingly irritating chair, Maria Miller, has come up trumps again, with a proposal for increasing the number of women MPs. The committee initiated an inquiry in the summer of 2016 into gender representation in the Commons and it has now concluded that all political parties should set out how they intend to increase the proportion of women in Parliament by 2020. If they don’t, it says the Government should set a domestic target of 45 per cent of all representatives in Parliament and local government by 2030. The goal, it says, should be backed by law setting a statutory minimum proportion of female parliamentary candidates in general elections for each political party, with fines or other sanctions for those who fail to comply.

You can see how this would work, can’t you: a version of David Cameron’s A-list, combined with the unlovely Labour approach of imposing all-women shortlists on reluctant constituencies – you already have a version of this imposed by the EU in Ireland, which is as patronising to well-qualified women as it is unjust to men displaced by less qualified women candidates.


It’s a blanket pink-and-blue approach to politics; at odds with all the stuff we’re hearing about the real inequalities in Britain, whereby white working-class boys are at the bottom of every pile, social and academic. I’d have thought myself, that if there’s a deficit in the representation of any one group, it would be the working class, especially those who haven’t been to university – the Labour party isn’t representing them; perhaps Ukip will. We don’t really need more privately educated lawyers in either house, of either gender.

Which isn’t to say that women often don’t have their work cut out getting beyond the candidates shortlist in Tory seats – I’ve got a friend who’s really nice and fabulously well qualified, but loses out every time to dud public schoolboys who’ve been in the army and who win over the women on the selection committee by the simple sentiment: ‘I’ve served my country before; now I want to serve you!’ Try replacing existing selection constituency panels with all male members and you might get more women selected. Seriously, the only non-discriminatory solution to the selection issue I can think of is the one favoured by the late Mo Mowlam – it was how she got her seat – which is to say that every shortlist must include a woman. It’s a world away from the fines and sanctions regime favoured by Maria Miller.

Actually, the whole notion that women are an underrepresented group in public and cultural life is ripe for demolition. All those women of the year awards, all those literary prizes for women writers, the special Oscars for women actors…they’re all premised on the notion that women are, as a gender, a subordinate group only prevented from taking their proper place in political, artistic and social life by wilful discrimination. It may be, is, true of other, more benighted parts of the world; over here, it’s palpably not. If women aren’t equally represented in the Commons – I fancy the Lords has its fair share of Shami Chakrabartis – then it may be that fewer women than men want to be MPs. Which is their choice, no?

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close