To think Reeves being the first female chancellor isn't something to brag about?

Well, yes. If you have had a mediocre career and suddenly people are clamouring to shovel you into the top job, you'd expect a short pause for thought "er, this is odd. Why me?" but not for Liz. "Me, it's mine, its my destiny, listen to ME". Tsk.

Good for her and I approve her budget.

Whilst not in power. We can both agree that the erosion of women's rights happened whilst the Tories were in power.

I think Truss did exactly what she said she'd do and "they" put her in because certain elements of the establishment stood to make a lot of money from her disaster. She brought it on herself, perhaps, but the party knew exactly what would happen, and that her premiership would fail spectacularly.

Well, lucky Tory you. 3 women leaders, 30% success rate if you like that kind of thing. Dropping to 25% in a couple of days. Meanwhile, Rachel Reeves appears to be very accomplished. Reeves v. Truss? Whose reputation is going to survive?

Calling Rishi a token is a bit much. Cameron made a point of trying to get more ethnic minority candidates, it was a real aim of his.

This thread is a real non-starter OP.

Of course it's a fantastic milestone for women that a female chancellor has just announced the budget. Why wouldn't it be?

I don't think Truss was exactly set up to fail, they were far too much in shambles for anything like that by autumn 2022. But having managed to make a woman a humiliatingly short lived PM is nothing to be proud of I agree. May otoh is a prime example of the glass cliff, and was treated badly from the start by the boorish men surrounding her.

"Doesn't seem much use"??

Really? Going by what?
The budget she has just announced which has actually caught most people by surprise because it's better than we were led to expect by the Tory press?

I love love love the fact that they seem to have put in a competent woman, more than up to the job.

The last two women the Tories made leader were basically set up to fail. That's not something to be proud of.

This is inconsistent OP. If you take the view that a female PM is something to be proud of, and that Labour are lacking due to never having had a female leader, the same principle applies to the Chancellorship.

Her sex is irrelevant. That she doesn’t seem much use is.🤷‍♀️

Of course it's a milestone for the UK, having now had its first woman Chancellor. It was also a milestone for the UK when Margaret Thatcher became the first woman PM of the UK. (Theresa May and Liz Truss have nothing to do with it except that people love to denigrate women no matter what.)

IF Labour ever have a woman leader, that will be a milestone for the Labour Party, but not for the UK as there has already been a first woman Party Leader (also Thatcher). In fact, every other party in Parliament has already had a woman leader, and none of them put the interests of women before or equal with those of men because misogyny is still pervasive in UK politics and society. It's still objectively better that there HAS been a woman Chancellor of the UK than if there had never been one.

You have to understand the fundamental differences between the Tories and Labour.

Tories will do anything that looks good on the surface and they can crow about. Doesn't matter what the shit behind the curtain looks like.

Labour puts in the person that they think will do the job best, regardless of whether they "look" good or not.

Two of those Tory women were shoved in as temporary fall guys (as was token Asian Rishi), they were never intended to be big hitters like Johnson etc. The others that would have gone forward because they want to be PM were waiting for a better season and hopefully a longer, easier reign than either May or Truss were ever going to get.

Last time I looked, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a totally different role to PM.

I think she is right to shout it from the rooftops, signposting young girls and women.

Fucking brilliant. 👏

Their 'recent record '? They've been in power for a few months and raising the NMW for example, helps millions of women. As well as having a record number of women in positions of power including Chancellor of the Exchequer.

So you agree that the Tories are not on the side of women (their record speaks for itself) and Thatcher was open about her contempt for women, Truss was a waste of space. Although she fluffed the Brexit negotiations, May did do some good work on domestic abuse and trafficking.

Did you start a thread chastising Truss? Just wondering why it’s Reeves that is making you so vocal.

That’s a bit disingenuous - Duffield is one Labour MP. There are brilliant women who show no desire to leave and are in top jobs - namely Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner, Jess Philips. Phillips in particular campaigns tirelessly for women’s rights.

I think it’s about time we had more women in senior roles and absolutely worth noting that Reeves is the first female chancellor. It’s great.

If we're comparing Reeves to May and god forbid, Truss, then I'd say there is a massive marked improvement?

Having been a member of the Labour Party, and at times very active, I don't think anyone could honestly claim that the interests of women have ever been to the forefront. Neither could anyone seriously claim there's not a current of misogyny running through it at practically every level.

But you're not arguing the Trans position, you're trying to claim that Tories are the better party re women's representation, which is clearly not the case.