When is a bung (not) a bung?

Is it acceptable for the central party to bribe local parties in target seats to select particular candidates? That is to say, should the party be in the business of slipping "large sums" to certain campaigns based solely on the gender of the candidate?

It appears that it is acceptable, and that this practice will grow in the future, limited only by available funds.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/conference/agenda.html?id=575&navPage=conferenceagenda.html (See the penultimate paragraph of the section titled "What the GBTF did between March and the election", about two-thirds of the way down.)

If the party is going to spend cash to get more women candidates it must at least be open and honest about it, not try to hide it away in a quango.

Rather unconvinvingly, the GBTF claims not to give any material advantage to women candidates after approval. Yet they've set the precedent of distributing extra funds to seats that have selected women. Any local party going into the selection process would do well do bear this in mind.

Up next, similarly funded task forces for racial balance, then religious balance? Maybe one for political balance (for candidates who aren't LibDems)? All "overwealmingly" supported by a nominally liberal party ostensibly opposed to centralism.

Of course Simon Hughes is already onto that last one.