http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... shortlists

Oh, do fcuk off. You're more likely to entrench stupidity from all sides than achieve your version of equality.

And if there aren't enough qualified or interested women? What if there are more qualified women as men, do they have to throw off some of the women to stick to 50%?

I've nothing against equality, but forcing equality for the sake of quotas is not the answer. The best person for the job, regardless of whether they are male, female, gay, disabled or from some minority group.

The problem they have is their selection process run by the local Conservative Associations - they are very conservative (with a small c) and so often discount women

I've had a similar thing from my union. An election (I think for the national committee) where there are 8 candidates. I can vote for three, but I have to vote for at least one woman. So that's not completely undermining the democratic principle at all then.

What's the ratio of men to women members in your union?

I don't know off the top of my head. I know that as well as your white collar types like me they represent a lot of areas which are lower paid and have a lot of women - I often get mailshots about their efforts towards equal pay for example.

I have no objection to them working towards improving the lot of their female members, in fact if they said 'we're going to put 60% of our efforts towards improving the lot of our female members because they need it most' I'd be fine with that. However I do have two objections to the constraint on the voting

1) It implies that either the best representative for women has to by definition be a woman or that a woman in such a post can by definition do something that a man cannot. I consider this to be sexist, and rubbish to boot.

2) As I said, it's a betrayal of one of the basic principles of democracy. If an election is not free - i.e. I am not free to vote for whoever I wish among the candidates - then it is not an election worth the name.

If you look at it the other way, let's say you have 40% women overall, rising to 80% in the manual jobs. If a council is elected with absolutely no women is it:
- because women aren't interested in governance?
- because women candidate were less good?
- because there is a bias that men in suits look more knowledgeable and authoritative than women?
It's an interesting problem.In France 50% women on election lists has been a requirement since 2000, at first there was whining, but now a lot of very knowledgeable women have risen to the task.

Here's the thing : I consider the presence or lack of a Y chromosome to be utterly irrelevant to somebody's competence as a union official. If women aren't interested, I don't want them doing the job. I don't want anybody representing me if they aren't interested in doing so. If they're less good than the other candidates, I don't want them doing the job either, because I want the best person available doing the job for me.

The last would be a valid consideration in e.g. a general election where there's widespread media coverage and the candidates go out of their way to give that impression - but this election is in that sense 'blind', you just get a written piece by each candidate and a small biog. You don't get to see whether they look authoritative in a suit or not.

As I say, I find it a very odd form of democracy that constrains who I am or am not allowed to vote among the list of candidates for when handing me the ballot paper. If a there's a woman on the candidate list whose info suggests she's knowledgeable. enthusiastic and could do a good job, I'll happily vote for her. I kind of resent being told I have to, apparently on the basis that I'm a sexist idiot who would simply discount all women unless I'm forced to do otherwise.

I'm think a lot of people would be happy electing a woman if she's good for the position, but a lot fewer will pick a woman out of choice if all candidates are much of the same.

It might actually work in their favour. Many women might be selected, though many women are not interested in politics because of the Yahboo nature of it.

A candidate thats on a ballot purely to meet a quota means no vote for them from me