At the outset the 2010 General Election was all set to be the mumsnet election – decided at the school gates.
Labour was clear that ‘middle income female voters with children in marginal seats’ would be key to the outcome. In the end it wasn’t quite such a women focused campaign – both women voters and women politicians were ultimately marginalized, replaced by media attention directed at the attire of the three main male leaders’ wives.
Five years on, what potential is there for women – as party leaders, candidates and voters – to play a prominent role in the election and shaping the debate?
The 2010 general election saw the first ever party leaders’ TV debates – three men interviewed by a series of male political journalists. With women absent it was perhaps not surprising that there was little talk of concerns widely regarded as women’s issues, such as childcare, work-life balance or violence against women and girls. Equally at the point of Coalition formation women politicians were absent; the price was very nearly the adoption of rape anonymity for defendants (which if adopted would have constituted the only area of criminal law that would have afforded the defendant such privacy – implying that false rape allegations are more common than other false allegations, for which there is no evidence). Despite some progress of a liberal feminist nature over the last five years (such as backing campaigns to end violence to women and radically overhauling the system of parental leave), the Coalition was dogged by allegations that it was out of touch with women throughout the parliament: media coverage focused on Cameron’s gendered gaffes, criticism that austerity had a woman’s face, and Cameron’s reluctance to put on that t-shirt.
The widespread realization that the UK is now a multi-party system, with the greater prominence of smaller parties, means that all-male leader debates in our view look increasingly unjustifiable: two of the seven main parties have women leaders, the Green’s Natalie Bennett and the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon. One of the implications of denying smaller parties’ representation would be the symbolic exclusion of women.
2010 was a missed opportunity for women candidates. Cameron set his stall on improving the diversity of his MPs, and there was some notable progress – with the number of Conservative women increasing from 17 to 49 – from 9 to 16%. Nevertheless the Labour party still had more women MPs than all the others added together (33%, as a result of its use once again of All Women Shortlists); the Liberal Democrats saw fewer women candidates stand and fewer women MPs elected compared with 2005.
As of December 2014 the pattern of parliamentary selections shows continuing differences amongst the parties: in each of the three largest parties’ retirement seats – those seats they hope, if not expect to hold, at the election – 35% of Tory candidates are women; 75% of Labour candidates are women; and 40% of Lib Dem candidates are women. This distribution shows for the fourth general election the positive impact of Labour’s AWS. UKIP’s candidates are 87% male – one indicator of Farage’s problem with women, and maybe women’s problem with UKIP.
In 2010 there was little by way of a gender gap amongst support for the three main UK parties. Men were greater supporters of the SNP, UKIP, and the BNP, and women were slightly more inclined to support the Greens. The fallout from the 2014 Scottish Referendum election has brought gender and voting to the fore. Throughout the Scottish campaign women were less likely to support independence than men. It is an open question whether women will shift their support towards the SNP between now and the 2015 Westminster election. Ditto UKIP, who know they need women’s votes. Inter party competition over women’s votes may well be key in 2015 – although we said that last time…
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
Submitting evidence before the House was to take further decisions on its Coronavirus arrangements, we decried the Leader of the House’s decision to end hybrid proceedings and remote voting as "over-hasty, poorly thought-through, unwise and unnecessary". Our recommendations covered House business, risk management, delegated legislation and select committees.
The new review of the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal project opens up a range of different outcomes for the future of the building. However, with the alarming state of the Palace not changed by the Coronavirus, the government should not use the pandemic as an excuse to downgrade or delay the much-needed repairs.
Jersey’s States Assembly was the first legislature in the Commonwealth to hold a full virtual meeting, with all members able to participate, in order to get around the limitations imposed by the Covid-19 crisis. Mark Egan, Greffier of the States, describes how this was achieved and suggests that some of the States Assembly’s Covid-19 innovations may stick.
The unprecedentedly long delay in appointing the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) again exposes the extent to which the work of this parliamentary committee is constrained by the executive. Important ISC inquiries, as well as publication of the Committee’s ‘Russia report’, are being held up.
Should the Liaison Committee have as its chair someone who is not simultaneously a select committee chair, and should the identity of that person be determined by the government? The answer to these questions will tell us much about how this cohort of MPs, particularly government backbenchers, view the relationship between Parliament and the executive.
The extensive take-up of remote evidence-taking by House of Commons select committees during the Easter recess is a significant Coronavirus-induced change of practice. It shows how procedural and technological change can help support scrutiny.