What to do with women in 2015: ‘Perhaps sit them in the corner’?

Blog

What to do with women in 2015: ‘Perhaps sit them in the corner’?

12 Dec 2014

At the outset the 2010 General Election was all set to be the mumsnet election – decided at the school gates.

Professor Sarah Childs,
Professor of Politics and Gender, University of Bristol

Professor Rosie Campbell,
Professor of Politics, Birkbeck College, University of London

Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox

Share this and support our work

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?

Party leaders

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.

Candidates

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.

Voting

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…

Latest / Highlights

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 13-16 April 2026

Ministerial Statements are expected on developments during the recess, particularly in the Middle East and on Russian submarine activity. The English Devolution Bill completes its final Lords stages, while legislative “ping-pong” continues on the Pension Schemes, Victims and Courts, Crime and Policing, and Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bills. MPs scrutinising the Courts and Tribunals Bill will examine proposals to restrict jury trials. In the Lords, two bills – on the Grenfell Tower Memorial and ministerial salaries – will be fast-tracked through all stages in a single day. MPs will debate SEND reform, statutory menstrual leave, children’s safeguarding, and accessibility in the House of Commons. The Lords will consider changes to Immigration Rules and access rights for departing hereditary peers. Chloe Mawson becomes the first woman to serve as Clerk of the Parliaments. And the Treasury Committee will hold an appointment hearing with the new chief executive of the Prudential Regulatory Authority.

News / Will key Government bills pass by the end of the parliamentary Session? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 138

With the King’s Speech set for 13 May, attention turns to the end of the current parliamentary Session and the frantic “wash-up” period before prorogation, likely in late April. We assess which Bills can still make it through in the remaining sitting days. With major Lords amendments on issues including revenge porn, social media access for under-16s, court transcripts and AI safety, Ministers face intense pressure and possible concessions. We also examine the political stakes around the Chagos Islands Bill and the stalled Hillsborough Law. The episode also answers listener questions on parliamentary procedure and reform, before exploring the sharp rise in Written Parliamentary Questions and what it means for effective scrutiny in Westminster. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Who really decides Immigration Rules: Parliament or the Home Secretary? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 137

Who really controls immigration law when Ministers can rewrite key rules with minimal parliamentary scrutiny? Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council explains the Home Secretary’s far-reaching powers over Immigration Rules. We also discuss the Crime and Policing Bill, where amendments on AI and abortion highlight the challenges posed by rushed law-making and executive overreach. And we look ahead to the next phase of the assisted dying debate, as supporters in the House of Commons prepare for a renewed legislative push in the next parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Submissions / Written Parliamentary Questions - Our evidence to the House of Commons Procedure Committee

The use of Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) is rising sharply. Since July 2024, MPs have tabled questions at unprecedented levels. By late 2025 MPs were tabling over 600 per sitting day, more than double the long-term average. WPQs are a cornerstone of parliamentary scrutiny, helping MPs obtain information, challenge government policy and put issues on the public record. But this surge raises important questions about how Parliament balances transparency and accountability with the practical limits of the system. The House of Commons Procedure Committee is now examining the issue and has just published our submission containing our latest data and analysis.

News / Jury trials under threat? The Courts and Tribunals Bill explained - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 136

Plans to restrict the right to a jury trial have cleared their Second Reading in the Commons, but the proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill face growing resistance, including from Labour rebels. We discuss the legal and constitutional implications with barrister Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, examining what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system. We also assess the passage of legislation removing hereditary Peers from Parliament, and the late compromise that eased opposition in the House of Lords. Meanwhile Sir Lindsay Hoyle clashes with the Chief Whip over delays in the division lobby, and newly released papers on Peter Mandelson’s Washington appointment raise fresh political questions. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS