WHEN we've had a female Prime Minister who did the job as well as any man, you can hardly say that women have yet to make their presence felt in Parliament.

But the modern obsession with sex equality has made such headway that both the Labour and Conservative parties are ready to impose all-women short-lists of election candidates, whatever the opposition from their members, or indeed the voting public.

Later today we should know whether Labour's national executive has imposed a ban on men contesting the nomination for the Stoke-on-Trent Central seat being vacated by Mark Fisher. That would be something new for North Staffordshire. I for one hope the idea has been dropped.

All right, I can already hear the groans. I'm an old reactionary who thinks that women should know their place, just as they did in grandfather's day. But hang on, we're talking here about violating the basic principles of democratic government.

To my mind, the dictatorial policy in favour of women known as 'positive discrimination' is the very antithesis of democracy. Surely parliamentary candidates of all stripes should be chosen on merit, irrespective of their sex?

It deprives the local party of the right to choose someone they might regard as their most able candidate and, even worse, it's as much of an insult to women themselves as it is to the electors.

Why? Because this misguided strategy suggests that would-be female MPs should be selected not on their ability but to make up the numbers in Parliament – in other words, token women – and must be protected from male competition.

Think about the influx of the so-called Blair's Babes in 1997, when a batch of female newcomers arrived as a result of all-women short-lists.

One of these was Jacqui Smith, who has proved to be a major embarrassment to Gordon Brown.

I hardly need remind you that women MPs who have represented this part of the world all made it to Westminster in a straight contest against all-comers – Joan Walley, Charlotte Atkins, Llin Golding, Gwyneth Dunwoody, Ann Winterton and Harriet Slater, who was the first woman to be a government whip.

They all demonstrated that the best women can stand up to men and beat them without any special treatment. That's as it should be.

Even the Suffragettes fought only for equal opportunities for women, not privileges.

So I am entirely in favour of increasing the number of women MPs in all political parties, but not in an artificial way which creates two classes of female members in Parliament, to quote the Tory veteran Ann Widdecombe.

Yet she is at odds with her leader, David Cameron.

I heard him say on Radio 4 that "women must jump higher barriers than men" to become MPs. The rate of change was too slow, he said, so he was looking at all-women short-lists for targeted seats.

Admittedly, women are in short supply in the Tory ranks. They have only 18 out of 193 MPs. But, in overriding the wishes of local people in the selection of candidates, I think Mr Cameron is on a loser.

He should keep in mind the cautionary tale of a constituency in South Wales where Labour lost a seat with a 19,000 majority once held by Nye Bevan.

An ex-Labour man won as an independent in a revolt over the imposition of an all-women short-list. I find it hard to understand how such short-lists could have been legalised at all when they are so blatantly at odds with sex discrimination laws.

In fact, they were declared illegal by an industrial tribunal, but resurrected and approved by Parliament in 2002.

However, this controversial clause in election law runs out in 2015 and must be renewed. I hope it's dropped for good.

We want the best women to win seats at Westminster, but on their own merits, not through the back-door practice of positive discrimination.