Any system of representation which consistently excludes the voices of women is not just unfair; it does not begin to count as representation. 1 Although contested, this view of political representation, which implicitly incorporates the notion of common group interests, has underpinned various campaigns in Britain to increase the numbers of women in political e  lites whether at local, regional, national or supranational levels. One approach espoused by the liberal (all-party) 300 Group has relied largely on arguing the case for the moral justice of parity of representation and supporting women to stand for election to parliament. This evolutionary approach does work, albeit slowly, since the numbers of women MPs increased from 2.9% in 1979 to 6.2% in 1987. At this rate of a little over 1% every four years, it would take another 175 years for women to achieve parity of representation in the House of Commons.However, since 1989, the Labour Party has sought to speed up this process through a series of measures, ranging from very modest quotas for women members of the shadow cabinet; through manipulated selection techniques, such as all-women shortlists (rejected as unlawful positive discrimination after a successful legal appeal by the Leeds Labour Party in 1996) and, ® nally, in 1999, the use of twinning or pairing of constituencies in order that equal numbers of men and women Labour candidates stand for election to the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales. There is insuf® cient space to detail the historical development of these various procedures which have been fully explored elsewhere. 2 However, the details of the twinning procedure, and how it has worked in practice for women candidates for the National Assembly for Wales (NAW), will be set out here as fully as we have been able to ascertain them from our discussions with those who experienced themÐ as successful or unsuccessful candidates, in both the north and south of the country.