I am going to sit on the fence on this, but I see the point that both you and Rachael are making.

You posted your last comment when I was drafting mine so I didn’t see it. As I suspected you had an open mind. Maybe when you consider the issues, you’ll be persuaded. It’s just the meritocracy argument is always trotted out without any regard for the existing problems.

Diane is a very able candidate but as is always the case with women, there are so many comments on blogs referring to looks and tokenism etc. Harriet faces the same prejudices and is regularly labelled as a man hater. If we’d actually made some serious progress over the last 40 years of supposed equality, we wouldn’t have to run a gauntlet on women’s issues – they’d be mainstream.

Equal representation in politics with the effect this has on formulating public policy, will mean women ultimately become accepted into the psyche as equals. Currently, we’re nowhere close.

Sorry to beat you up here – we agree on many things but I need to say this:

What I find patronising is the continual recanting of the very-reasonable-sounding argument that all candidates should be selected on merit. This is a complicated long-standing problem and can’t be dismissed in such simple terms.

Treating disadvantaged groups as equal ignores existing inequality, which makes it a self-perpetuating situation. Opportunity will have been lost because of previous disadvantages or exclusion.

I recently heard Andrew Neil condemn the merit only argument as without positive discrimination [in politics], nothing ever changes. Not someone I had ever considered a natural champion of women’s rights – he soared in my estimation.

Positive discrimination makes up for lost opportunity based on discriminatory practices. The US and Canada enshrined it in legislation years back, which is why you see more women in influential positions there than here. It was absolutely essential in South Africa for true black equality. It simply accelerates achieving the goal.

It’s particularly important for older women in their 40s and 50s who have such a lot of life experience and practical knowledge, but don’t have great CVs because of segregated employment or family roles. I’ve recently signed up for a programme (heavily oversubscribed) aimed at increasing the numbers of women in public life by improving their skills and confidence.

Obviously with positive discrimination there will be accusations of unfairness and there will be some well-qualfified people who are passed over, but it will unlock potential and encourage diversity which is crucial for the Labour party if it wants to come back stronger with new ideas and broader appeal.

It is, however, something about which the leadership needs to send out positive messages and not allow it to be seen as a sop. Numerical targets without promoting a cultural change won’t work.

Eventually, when women are commonplace in senior and high profile roles in politics and business, their presence won’t provoke comment (I hope).

I’m only sorry I couldn’t sign the letter as I left the Labour party when it stopped representing the working class. Another problem it should be addressing.

I’m in 2 minds on this one.

I think having Ms Abbot in the contest will bring a new dimention to it.