A lot has been written about the potential move to women-only shortlists for Conservative seats selecting in the new year. Because of the unusually high churn in seats caused by the expenses scandal, it is likely that some of these seats will be “safe” Conservative seats or ultra-marginals that we could be expected to win.

This would result in an automatic increase in the number of women MPs on the Conservative benches if the actual General Election results reflect our current poll ratings.

Notionally this sounds good, but I would like to explain why I believe such a policy will be bad for the Conservative Party in the long run.

To begin with, let me make it clear that under David Cameron’s stewardship, the Conservative Party has undoubtedly become more attractive to a broader range of people than it has ever been before, which is a good thing.

Just going to fundraisers, conferences and other events is a visible show of this. The party is younger and more diverse (in all of its senses) than it has ever been before.

However,  it does not make sense to single out women for shortlisting if diversity is what the party is aiming for in Parliament. Why not shortlist Jews, Tamils, Afro-Caribbeans, homosexuals or the disabled for shortlisting? Ginger people or the Welsh are minorities in the UK, as are those of Swedish or Nigerian extraction.

The truth is, there are many excellent hard-working activists and party members and supporters who simply don’t want to be MPs. The diversity in elected representation needs to be measured not only within the Party’s Parliamentary ranks, but in the truer measure of local representation, which is our local councillor and council candidate base.

Council candidates more often than  not are truer local residents and given their large number, a better sample from which to draw statistical data.

Being a councillor does not require moving house, giving up the day job or career prospects, destroying your private life, or being subject to the kind of press attention that being an MP does, so may suit many more people than being in Parliament.

Crucially, however, because we do not have a system of proportional representation (which I vehemently oppose),  it is much harder to measure diversity against a constituency link - is Adam Afriye less able to represent Windsor because he is black and most of his constituents are white? Of course not. He’s a first rate MP which any constituency of any make-up should be proud to have representing them in Parliament.

If we accept that as a starting point, then the Party must make absolutely clear why is wants more women in Parliament. What are we, the “fairer sex” going to bring, which a man of equal abilities cannot?

I am, ironically, in a position to partially answer that question. I dealt with a constituent who had a tragic case which involved some horrific domestic violence. The reason she came to me, as opposed to Vince, was simply because I am a woman and she felt more comfortable discussing her plight with me as opposed to him.

This was a relief for the lady ins in this case, but it could so easily have been different, if the victim had been black or Muslim and felt there was no local Parliamentary representation for them.

The aims from the Conservative Party are therefore benevolent - I do not doubt that for one moment. Providing positive role models from a range of backgrounds in a future Parliament that is hopefully freer from the scandal and sleaze of the current one is vitally important - we should not ignore the power of image.

However, for us to focus on the Parliamentary list as opposed to the entire candidate and activist base is a mistake. The truth is, despite the statistics showing that there are x number of applicants for each constituency, there are many women in particular who fear what the effects would be on their families and chose not to apply in the first place. I know this, because I have spoken to them.

I believe that the changes in the Conservative Party over the last few years are fundamental and permanent. They started under Michael Howard (after all, it was us members under his leadership who elected David Cameron in the first place) and will continue many decades hence.

In other words, Labour’s stranglehold over certain groups is over. Many of those new members will stay with us more many years to come and will make their decisions to apply for seats when the time is right for them.

As the Party that believes in trusting the individual, it is my belief that we should put that principle in to practice and see the results of our broader appeal come in to fruition not only for this election, but those in the future, when politics is a career that those minorities want to be a part of.