We now have many more women and others from diverse educational and occupational backgrounds in the Conservative Party than ever before.  That’s a testament to David Cameron’s leadership and determination to create a modern and inclusive Party.

But as the dust settles many of us have deep misgivings about the virtue of positive discrimination through centrally enforced party shortlists and quotas.  There is also concern about extending this principle into the business arena by, for instance, legislating for 50% women applicants on the long list for FTSE-100 appointments.

Many of the new in-take of Conservative MPs are friends whom I have assisted, advised and supported for selection as candidates.  Every one of them has agonised about accepting a shortlist placement in the run up to election; not because they weren’t up to it, but for precisely the opposite reason – they were confident that their abilities would have won them their place in open competition.

They are talented and experienced individuals and will make superb MPs, irrespective of their gender, sexuality, education, occupation or heritage.  I am also convinced that they would have made it into Parliament through their own resourcefulness.

Simplistic meritocracy is by no means an ideological panacea, as anyone who’s read Michael Young’s dystopian work will acknowledge.  But, tempered with a pragmatism that accepts that we can only ever aspire to an ideal world, it has to be a better approach in modern Britain than the alternative: paternalism coupled with the associated patronisation, no matter how well meaning.

Moves to impose candidates, rather than to offer guidance, have occasionally incensed local Party Chairmen, activists, Selection Committees and, dare I say it, those candidates who felt excluded from the process and discriminated against through no fault of their own.

Throughout the last Parliament MPs who were selected on merit were aware of those who had received a leg up from quotas and official discrimination on shortlists.  Many of New Labour’s prized ‘Blair Babes’ were, largely wrongly, seen as less able than others; and it would be understandable if the stigma of charity case status proved testing for the recipients’ self-esteem.  This is the legacy of favouritism which lingers not only for observers but for those talented and able MPs who would make it on merit but are perceived not to have done so.
 

Any cultural or institutional barriers to candidate selection and promotion within political parties, Parliament or Government must not be overcome by an elite group condescending to give a select group of candidates an officially sanctioned advantage.  This would be not only patronising, but cause resentment and belittle the (apparently hapless) recipients who might feel both cheated of recognition for their personal talents and disempowered by patronage they did not seek.

Irrespective of political party, we all share the same desire for a more open, diverse and inclusive political system.  But we should not fall victim to the knee-jerk reaction of institutionalising special group privilege to achieve it, as advocated by Harriet Harman.  Our political leaders must continue to make it clear that they are determined to see a diverse range of people in our democratically-elected Parliament and Government.  But they should resist the temptation of official patronage which creates resentment and segregates society by embedding ‘groupism’.  They must stop short of this kind of well-meaning but divisive approach which does a disservice to talent and confuses ends with means.

That’s why I am urging the new Government to ensure that Labour’s amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, which legalised all-women shortlists, should be allowed to lapse in 2015.  The selection of candidates based on personal characteristics – that are arbitrary or merely in vogue – should not enjoy legal force if we believe in the nature of equal opportunity.  The ability to do the job should take precedence.

I am also urging the Government to ditch the policy that insists that 50% of applicants for corporate directorships must be women.  Thankfully the Financial Reporting Council has recently stopped short of incorporating quotas into the Corporate Governance Code.  They have instead asked recruitment panels to consider diversity when making placements, and I would encourage the Government to adopt a similar approach.  To overcome inadvertent selection barriers in business, we need positive action like this, not positive discrimination.

The best approach would be to recognise that first generation pioneers, with non-mainstream attributes, may need additional support, advice and coaching to respond to a political world with which they’re not entirely familiar.  The key is for this support to be unofficial so that it neither skews the selection criteria nor disadvantages other candidates.  And this, if we’re honest, is the way it works in all other walks of life.

There are many supportive groups and individuals.  Women to Win, led by Anne Jenkin, is a good example of a voluntary support group for women who want to get into Conservative politics.  In my case input was generously provided by friends like Francis Maude, Charles Hendry, Sir John Stanley and others, as I made the transition from business to politics over many years. Operation Black Vote are running their own shadowing scheme to help aspiring politicians become familiar with the Westminster world, and many of our well-known companies and universities operate successful schemes to guide candidates who have disabilities or come from non-traditional backgrounds through an open competition.

My greatest plea to the Coalition is this:  don’t sleepwalk our country towards this politically correct hell.  Where we hear of new impositions that threaten the meritocratic principle, we must not remain silent.  The elitist creep is always a worry, even when it stems from good intentions.  We can achieve a more diverse political system through a greater degree of meritocracy.  Pragmatic meritocracy is the least worst option in a democracy that values opportunity and social mobility.