Latrade, I agree with much of what you are saying- we need change and the change needs to be at candidate level. Interestingly in the Scandanavian countries where quotas have been introduced, what they say is that change was introduced BEFORE quotas- so that for eg, I think in Norway, representation was at 20 or 25% prior to quotas, and is now up over 40%. The change was made both by womens groups heavily lobbying parties to choose female candidates, to groom them, to educate them in public speaking, pr etc, and also lobbying successfully for social change in working hours, in good maternity leave, maternity pay, childcare systems and so on. So the structure, legal and social, was in place before quotas which in itself would have attracted more candidates.So it can be done without quotas, but it takes generations to do this.
I guess that was partly my less than elequent point. The fundamental changes to politics and the expectations on TDs needs to shift and be more attractive. I'm not saying we make it a doddle and strip out the work that needs to be done as a TD, but as you point out, some basic aspects that, well, every other employer has had to put in place either by law or to attract good employees.
I have to say, I know of a couple of fantastic potential women candidates local to me. One FG and one FF. Both were overlooked recently for bigger profile (new) male candidates. One a pretty inept ex-council, the other a parachute job (not George Lee btw). What was worse was seeing these two highly capable, young two women suddenly relegated at pretty much the last minute still having to go out and canvass for the men as to raise any objection would end their career in full.
So it isn't just the job, it isn't just women not going for the work, it isn't just not getting elected. There is still a core of prejudice among the big two parties.