Margaret Thatcher on July 14 unveiled a plaque to suffragists in the House of Commons, commemorating the 75th anniversary of women’s right to vote in England.
Despite the progression from the first woman elected to Parliament (Nancy Astor in 1919) to the first woman prime minister (Thatcher in 1979) and the first woman speaker of the House of Commons (Betty Boothroyd in 1992), the mother of parliaments still consists largely of fathers.
As British women are growing more discontent and vocal about their lack of political representation, all three major political parties-the Conservative or Tory, the Labour and the Liberal Democrats-have launched initiatives to encourage and nurture women into politics.
The Labour Party, however, is going further, pushing for a controversial measure that would increase significantly the number of female Labour members of Parliament at the next general election.
The proposal, approved by the Labour Party’s ruling body in July and likely to be endorsed at the party’s national convention in the fall, would reserve half of all Labour “safe seats” for women. Practically, half of all constituencies in which a sitting Labour member will be retiring or Labour believes it can win will be asked to draw up women-only short-lists, as the finalist list of candidates for each party is called.
That way, the number of women representing the Labour Party will increase every Parliament session until there is 50 percent women, says Sue JacksonLabour Party spokeswoman.
Since 1918, only 163 women have been elected to Parliament, compared with 3,986 men. Almost half of these women were in Parliament for only one session because they were given highly contested seats or were elected in by-elections, when a seat becomes vacant in the period between general elections.
Only 10 women have made it to the Cabinet in that time, although that includes one prime minister, while 388 men have served in the Cabinet.
At the last general election in April 1992, a record number of women, 60, were elected, but they still account for less than 10 percent of the House of Commons membership. And the movement hasn’t been consistently upward: In 1964, for example, there were 29 women members; in 1979, only 19.
Many Conservatives, as well as some Labour members, argue that such a quota system is more of an American approach than a British one and that quotas are the antithesis of the cause they are trying to advance, namely equality.
“The Labour Party should be about equality of opportunities; it should remove all barriers, such as sex or color,” says Labour member John Spellar, who is campaigning against his party’s proposal. “Establishing quotas is establishing institutional differences, and it sends the message that the Labour Party is irremediably prejudiced.”
Many question the fairness of a system that prevents men from standing as candidates. They point to the divisions and the resentment that affirmative action policies have created in the United States. The 5 million-member National Council of Women of Great Britain, for example, doesn’t approve of Labour’s proposal.
“It segregates people rather than bringing them together,” says Patience Purdy, the council’s president. “There are better ways of achieving equality.”
Labour isn’t pushing for a formal quota system, Jackson argues, as it is only reserving half of all safe seats for women. “We call it `positive discrimination.’ It’s rather a mixture of a carrot and stick. We are not trying to force constituencies who do not want women but (are) encouraging these (constituencies) who are willing.”
The party, Jackson says, expects that half the targeted constituencies, or districts, voluntarily will present all-women short-lists. If it’s not the case, the party must negotiate how to select these seats, she says.
Many foes of Labour’s proposal argue that parties should concentrate instead on removing specific barriers against women and assisting them to advance in politics. They point to several steps in that direction.
The 300 Group, for example, was founded in 1980 to work toward a minimum of 300 women in Parliament (of 651 total), as well as more women into the European Parliament and local governments. The non-partisan volunteer organization provides practical information and training, such as public speaking, to prepare women for public life.
In February the Labour Party started Emily’s List, which-as her sister in the United States-stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast, to help finance Labour women candidates.
And in June three women members of Parliament who ordinarily don’t agree on anything-Glenda Jackson, a fiercely socialist Labourite; Liz Lynne, a fiercely anti-Labour Liberal Democrat, and Teresa Gorman, a right-wing Conservative-launched Women into Politics. The non-partisan campaign wants to stimulate women’s interest in politics through exhibits and seminars.
Gorman is the first to acknowledge that women never will achieve “the critical mass” necessary to be effective in politics through such initiatives alone. The system of selecting candidates needs to be changed, she says. The selection system varies from one party to the other, but usually candidates in each constituency are nominated by party branches and affiliated groups, such as trade unions, through meetings and interviews. A central selection committee reviews applications and drafts short-lists. Party members in each constituency then vote on the short-list ballots.
Even when very qualified women come forward as candidates, they’re not likely to be adopted for safe seats, Gorman says. Boothroyd tried for 16 years before being elected.
Nonetheless, Gorman disagrees with the positive-discrimination solution on the ground that is patronizing. Instead, she presented a bill in Parliament proposing to have each constituency represented by a man and a woman. Her bill was swiftly rejected.
Ann Ward, 70, administrator of Emily’s List in England, adds: “In my lifetime, the number of women in Parliament has increased by 0.8 percent a year. It’s pathetic.”
