Most safe labour seats, by there very nature have a significant economically deprived portion and sadly if follows a significant BME group. At the same time a marginal or un-safe seat is more likely to have a small BME group. Therefore, a BME candidate would stand a better chance in a safe seat. The problem is that by having all women short list in safe seats we effectively rule out 50% of the seats to BME candidates. For example, an ethnic minority male would have a good chance in a seat such as Burnley because of its significant Asian population, but because it was an all women's seat they couldn't stand.

In a recent MORI study it was shown that BME candidates secure a smaller share of the vote for their parties than white candidates, sadly this was more so in Labour constituencies. This fact may be on the mind of any selection panel. Even if they aren't aware of this study any experience of local elections will show that a BME candidate fairs worse.  I know that in one rural seat after the 2005 election the chairman of the local party referred to the race of candidate as a factor in the decreased Labour vote. I appreciate that Labour have done more that any other party to tackle the race issue in Parliament. Indeed, we can all give examples of a BME candidate but sadly not enough are elected under the current system.

So what do we do? Ignore the issue and hope that it will go away! As one person said when I raised this before, it matters not, you're a good candidate you're bound to get through (clearly missing the point!). Scrap the current system and have an A-List or go back to the system we have used before - both clearly have major problems? Or introduce ethnic minority quotas? I don't know what the solution is and as I said before I clearly have an interest. What I do say is that we need a debate and we can't allow the current system (as laudable as it may be) to continue if it discriminates against other minority groups.