OK, I understand why David Cameron wants to increase the number of women Conservative MP’s – the current situation (18 out of 190ish) is pretty appalling.

However the imposition of all women shortlists on local associations just isn’t the right way of making the change.

I think that it is quite insulting to women standing as prospective parliamentary candidates to imply that the only way they can “win” a selection competition is by having all male candidates excluded.

I also have a major issue with our party taking a leaf out of the New Labours book – imposing a same sex shortlist is a very blunt instrument and has caused major divisions within some constituency Labour Party associations.

We only need to look at the example of the Blaenau Gwent constituency to see what the consequences may be.

Finally how does the imposition of all women shortlists sit with the Tory policy of increasing “localism”?

Isn’t it something of a contradiction for our party to claim it wants to devolve power back to local people but is comfortable to impose a centrally selected list of PPC’s on a local association?

If our party selected its PPC’s by a local caucus or even better by local primaries then wouldn’t that demonstrate a true commitment to “localism” and help ensure we got the best candidates irrespective of their sex?

Whilst away in France Judi & myself regularly listened to the English language radio station “Riviera Radio” which broadcasts from Monaco.

An item broadcast this week was about a used car that has just gone onto the market.

A Volkswagen, one (high profile) owner, 500 miles on the clock, cost?

Monaco really is the most amazing place for motoring enthusiasts (or Top Gear “Twitchers”).

Last Saturday we passed through Monaco (sadly on a bus) and in the space of 10 minutes saw numerous models from Maserati, Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lamborghini, Bentley etc etc.

It really didn’t feel that the recession had really had much of an impact on the Principality!

Inevitably, the media has been packed with stories about Thursday night’s edition of “Question Time”.

I understand that the viewing figures for QT were about 4 x higher than for a “normal” episode – clearly the result of Nick Griffins appearance.

I welcomed the decision of the BBC to give Mr Griffin a slot on the panel – I have commented before that whilst I find the BNP odious I believe that there should be a proper debate and engagement between the mainstream parties and the BNP.

Only in this way will the personalities and politics behind what is a deeply unpleasant political party be exposed for what they are. Allowing media exposure to minority groups such as the BNP is a measure of the strength of our democracy.

I have been deeply disappointed by the comments of Peter Hain who has condemned the BBC for allowing Mr Griffin’s appearance. Why is it that certain left wing politicians want to suppress the views (however unpleasant & offensive) of what they choose to call the extreme right wing?

Mr Hain is widely quoted on the web today following the YouGov poll that nearly 25% of the population would consider voting for the BNP following Mr Griffin’s appearance on QT.

"This is exactly what I feared and warned about.

"The BBC has handed the BNP the gift of the century on a plate and now we see the consequences. I'm very angry about this."

Sorry Mr Hain, but this isn’t a consequence of a television programme it is more to do with (1) The failure of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem politicians to address issues that concern the electorate – such as immigration (2) The disgust that many people feel at the behaviour and attitude of the Westminster political elite.

Interestingly the opinion poll actually showed that only 3% of the 1300 odd people interviewed would vote BNP – there is after all a world of difference between considering voting and actually voting for a party.

Moving on, I have heard much criticism of the QT audience being “unrepresentative” – in effect that the audience was loaded against Mr Griffin.

I understand that a QT audience is about 200 people and from what I saw and heard perhaps 10 people at Thursdays recording were BNP supporters.

As the BNP polls about 6% of votes in recent elections then are we surprised that Mr Griffin was given such a hard time? Would it have been more “representative” if the audience had more BNP supporters in it?

Mr Griffin has apparently complained that the BBC set a “lynch mob” on him – setting aside the unfortunate metaphor I think he may have a point here.

I thought that the editorial control of QT on Thursday was markedly different from the norm.

I don’t recall seeing an episode previously where a single topic – Mr Griffin / the BNP – has been allowed to so dominate the show.

I understand that the majority of the questions submitted were likely to focus on the BNP but surely the role of the editor is to sift and filter the questions to cover a range of topics. That must happen in a “normal” week when QT usually covers 4 – 5 different subjects.

Whilst I have little sympathy for Mr Griffin and thought that the questions did confirm my view of him as a rather unpleasant bigot I felt increasingly uncomfortable as the show progressed that we were watching a televised version of bear baiting.

As a result we learned nothing about Mr Griffin’s views on a range of topical items and as a result I feel the programme was severely devalued.