I'd say that it's not legal and they'd be getting themselves in a spot of bother if they were challenged over it, but they simply won't be challenged over it.

Discrimination is viewed by many as perfectly acceptable, when the person being discriminated against is male / white / middle class.

If they had said no women or no blacks this would have been all over the front pages; the unions would have been up in arms; and no-win no-fee solicitors would have set up a dedicated helpline encouraging people to claim compensation.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Discrimination_%28Election_Candidates%29_Act_2002You'd be wrong then[/url

I don't agree with all women short lists. I believe Labour also do something similar with their elections to the NEC too where you have to choose a certain number of women.
I totally understand why they're doing it and have sympathy with and fully support the aim of it. But it's the wrong way to go about it. It's discrimination, plain and simple.
If Labour want to get more women into parliament/as candidates/on the NEC etc then they need to change the culture that prevents that. Which is difficult but it's the only way it'll work in the long run. Instead they need to put more time, money and effort into getting women involved. Set up specific structures in the party if necessary. Whatever.

But using one type of discrimination to defeat another isn't the right way in my opinion.

A bit OT but there's still lots of "legal discrimination" out there. The 65+ NS&I bonds for instance. Or senior citizen discounts. Or car insurance etc.

If whoever wins the election does as good a job as Linda has done then Halifax will be well served - like Greg Mullholland an excellent unflashy MP who is genuinely interested in serving their constituents