Fifteen to twenty years ago, the supporters and advocates of All Women Shortlists – and that included many of us on the left who were actually men – were concerned about the small numbers of women that were being selected as Labour Party candidates.

Part of the problem, was a feeling that when choosing between two equally qualified, and able candidates, one male, and one female, that a predominantly male party would typically choose the man, not, you understand, because ‘they’ had doubts about a female candidate, but because ‘their friends / neighbours / colleagues’ were not thought to be ready to support a woman.

There simply were not enough female MPs to point to, to show that this prejudiced view had no foundation. The goal of All Women Shortlists was to seek to redress the under representation of women in parliament as quickly as possible, thus dispelling any myths about the abilities of female MPs, and then enabling more female candidates to come through open shortlists.

Now 15 years on, we can look at a similar situation, where part of our core vote, the UK’s Black, Asian and diverse Minority Ethnic communities are seeing that they are having similar problems getting selected as Labour candidates. If addressing this situation was a serious concern of the Labour Party, why would they implement the AWS policy in such a way that it REDUCES opportunities for any BAME candidate to seek selection in an area where they may have local ties and connections, and hence have a fair chance of selection.

If there are two seats, one 97.5% white (lets call it Easington), and one 40% BAME (Walthamstow), either one of these seats could have been chosen for an AWS. You would still have at least one female MP from the pair. The GCs of both constituencies bitterly opposed AWS, though for different reasons. In London, nearly 40% of our MPs are women, much higher than in the North East. Why was Easington open, and Walthamstow AWS.

Somebody needs to explain that process through which this decision was arrived at, because the practical result of this decision, was the disenfranchisement of BAME men, again. A BAME candidate of either gender would have a chance of winning in Walthamstow, but almost no chance in Easington. A woman will obviously win an AWS. Having the AWS in Easington creates increased opportunities for both women and BAME candidates. Having the AWS in Walthamstow creates increased opportunities for women at the expense of BAME men.

And it never needed to be so. Yet this is part of a pattern. In early 2005, Copeland was open, whilst West Ham was AWS. In 2004, Normanton was open, whilst Hackney South was AWS.

This should NOT be about increased opportunities for women OR increased opportunities for BAME candidates.  The practical implementation of the AWS policy should be able to create BOTH.

And that’s why Walthamstow should have been open, and Easington should have been AWS.