Caroline Lucas calls for an all-women cabinet

Or he could identify as Dominic Grieve, who apparently has enough womanly qualities to serve in Caroline's fantasy cabinet.

I'm really pleased to learn that sticking to ones principles is a 'womanly' quality.

At last I'm getting a bit of womaning right!

Oh for heaven's sake, Caroline.
By CL's logic, Theresa May would have succeeded in whatever she was trying to achieve, if only she had had an all non-men cabinet. I'm not sure CL would have applauded an all-women line-up of McVey, Jenkyns, Patel, Leadsom etc.

What I'd really like now is for John McDonnell or someone to say, "I identify as female and want to be in the all-female cabinet" and see how she takes it.
^Excellent suggestion. Or he could identify as Dominic Grieve, who apparently has enough womanly qualities to serve in Caroline's fantasy cabinet.

Oh that’s too funny..... I expect her lightbulb moment of an all ‘woman’ cabinet will be the Pip Bunce variety.

The idea that women are generally better at cooperating hasn't been pulled out of thin air, there is actually a fair bit of evidence to support it. The idea as I understand it is that women > men at communicating and cooperating so bringing together an emergency all female cabinet to resolve a complex toxic failing negotiation will be more effective than a male/ mixed sex cabinet.

However, this is one of the times when we are actually interested in gender rather than sex, because the idea that women are better communicators/ cooperators is, as someone else pointed out, a gendered stereotype. It may also be true to a degree, but that's a result of female socialisation, not some magic female cooperation gene. So what Lucas should actually be looking for is a cabinet full of the best cooperators, who are least likely to exhibit masculine grandstanding and power grabbing. Given the current gender expectations of men and women, such a cabinet would probably contain more women than men, but may also contain men like Grieve and exclude women like Widdecombe. My (long winded) point is that what Lucas means when she says she wants an all woman cabinet is that she wants a cabinet full of people who behave in a certain way most commonly associated with people socialised female.

Anyway, like others have said it's never going to happen and it's dumb anyway because it misses the point by about a million miles over why Brexit is actually happening. A no deal Brexit isn't on the cards because of a lack of skilled male negotiators, it's on the cards because a lot of very wealthy people have a financial interest in it happening. The idea that if we'd just had a better team of people involved in negotiating a No Deal Brexit wouldn't be happening is so so naive. No deal was always the goal, right from the start.

As for the "your fantasy cab is too white" comments, that also misses the point spectacularly. The point is to bring together the best cooperators. Lucas believe sex is relevant in that equation so she's assembled a cab based on sex. She clearly doesn't think race is relevant to that equation, so why would she consider the race of the women in her cab? It's not like she only reached out to white women because she thinks white women are better cooperators than WOC. Now, if you said that she should include WOC because their perspective is valuable for representing the different demographics in our country then yes, that'd be a fair point. But if your goal is to fairly represent the demographic of our country then you would also have to include men, so the argument fails on every level.

Perhaps Grieve is the "one good man", but there are too many MPs, on both sides of the house, who are voting against their conscience with one eye on maintaining their position, to make me truly believe he would

I believe he would. But that is precisely the reason it is a silly stunt in the first place. There are few enough MPs upholding their oath to serve in the interests of all their constituents, not just the 27% of the population who voted for this farce, as is. To exclude a number of those few principled MPs on the basis of their sex is madness.

I'm with the Queen: the quality of MP in this country is currently embarrassing. I also read that headline and thought what Lucas actually means is a cabinet of people who like pink and have long hair or something because the Green party don't say nasty things like biological sex exists. Honestly, what's the point in a cabinet of people who perform femininity? What political weight does that achieve?

And yes, all flippancy aside, that she's presenting inequality as a right thinking, nay even a normal thing to do in 2019 as an MP.... how much more farcical can it get?

IME, politicans don't have much interest in doing things they don't get any credit for (and he wouldn't get any credit for it, Caroline Lucas and her "girl power" cabinet would).

Perhaps I'm just too jaded. Perhaps Grieve is the "one good man", but there are too many MPs, on both sides of the house, who are voting against their conscience with one eye on maintaining their position, to make me truly believe he would.

As for the possible reasons, they don't matter. She has single-handedly reintroduced the idea that selection for government positions should be based upon sex (and by extension race, religion, sexuality etc...) into public debate, and in doing so made even decent-minded people sceptical that anybody who protests against inequality won't actively seek that inequality when they can turn it in their favour. Well done, Caroline Lucas.

It serves to reinforce the idea of how away with the fairies The Green Party is.

This, a hundred times. What I'd really like now is for John McDonnell or someone to say, "I identify as female and want to be in the all-female cabinet" and see how she takes it.

Ok I can see some people are more interested in being outraged at a political stunt rather than discussing the possible reasons for the stunt.

As I don't actually support the idea of a female unity cabinet I'm going to drop out as my theories of political manoeuvring are being read as a defence.

However I amused at the what's in it for Grieve?

Er stopping a no Deal which he considers to be a disaster? Opening a route for a second referendum?

I know it is hard to believe but Grieve isn't doing what he's doing for personal political power.

Words can not express how dumb as fuck this is.

It serves to reinforce the idea of how away with the fairies The Green Party is.

I don't see how it doesn't reinforce stereotypes either.

Also, is this based on sex or gender identity? Given Lucas apparently believes that self ID and acceptance without questioning what difference will this make?

Its a load of bollocks.

Its playing straight into the traps of the culture war. And that doesn't serve the interests of women.

Idiot.

So is Mark Drakeford

I was pointing out why Anne Widdecombe wasn't written to but another non mp woman was. It's a political stunt.

As I pointed out I am not in favour of an all female cabinet but there are a lot of posts asking what is Lucas thinking.

I am trying to explain what I think the political strategy is.

I am not defending the concept.

I don't think it is likely to happen.

In the unlikely event this group of women did come together they do not make a full cabinet never mind a full government. There will be plenty of space for men to take positions.

But don't worry it's not going to happen.

if this group of women give any indication of interest it would send an earthquake through the system and possibly force labour to reconsider their strategy.

That's a big if and a huge, and stupid, gamble. And already undermined by Soubry's eminently sensible response.

It's nonsense anyway. I'll just mention Priti Patel and rest my case!

I didn't say they'd stop their cooperation because it has been mooted. I would say that I don't see what was in it for them, and I believe that all politicians whatever their stripe, are very concerned by what is in things for them.

Who would go from being a leading anti-Brexit figure (albeit hated by his own party), to a non-player (and still hated by his party), all whilst bowing to some craven identity politics.

Also, why on Earth would he and Starmer draft the bill ? Why wouldn't this super-woman cabinet do the work and draft the bill ?

TBH, I'm not really arsed by the endgame regarding Brexit. WHat I hate is the idea that discrimination becomes OK because "it's in the national interest". Replace all-female cabinet by a call for an explicitly...

all-Christian cabinet
all-heterosexual cabinet
40-and-over cabinet
parents-only cabinet
all-male cabinet
all-white cabinet
all--pure-British cabinet (no dual nationalities allowed)
all-English cabinet

... and I feel pretty sure that any right-thinking person would be outraged. Brexit is not a justification for comprising a fundamental principle that sex / race / religion etc... have no place in the reckoning of government members.

Brainfart

Do you really think that politicians such as Grieve are going to stop their cross party cooperation just because an all woman cabinet has been mooted?

This is just one potential strand.

We are in an unprecedented situation where party politics is collapsing. We potentially have conservatives willing to vote for their own government to fall leaving 14 days for a new administration to form.

In that case labour will attempt to form a minority government with a leader who seems quite happy to brexit, we have some sort of national unity government (unlikely to be supported by corbyn) or we have general election.

I think if Grieve is willing to vote against his own party and sacrifice his own political career for what he sees as the good of the country a potential all female unity cabinet is not going to stop him.

In fact if this female unity cabinet is formed with the sole intention to stop brexit and legislate for another referendum I think Grieve would embrace that option. Him and Starmer would probably have a draft bill ready to present to the cabinet. (He'd probably also be made head of one of the committees dealing with this)

We already have a government that no one has voted for but don't worry we're not going to get an all female unity cabinet.

This is a political strategy by Lucas, nothing more, to apply pressure to labour who refuse to consider any option other than Corbyn as PM.

It's not going to work but I tell you if this group of women give any indication of interest it would send an earthquake through the system and possibly force labour to reconsider their strategy.

Has she taken leave of her senses. Why? What? How? I used to admire her-all my heroines are now dust.

Why is Caroline Lucas doing this? Obviously it's a silly idea (you can't assume that women will do a better job than men, even though it's tempting to think they can), but more importantly there is zero chance that it is going to happen. So one can only assume that she is just doing it for the attention.

What is even funnier is that little OJ has seized the opportunity to claim the moral high ground by asking why Lucas hasn't included Diane Abbott in her pretend cabinet, and implying that Lucas is racist. OJ knows quite well that it isn't going to happen, so quibbling about who should or should not be in this non-existent thing is entirely beside the point.

Yes it's a stupid stunt, but so - it could be argued - is Brexit. It's idiotic (not least because she thinks 'woman' includes any man who says so, self ID in action) but I'm not noticing anyone doing anything more useful. It's a shame this ridiculous notion will get column inches and distract everyone into talking about it rather than focusing on the issue at hand.

The EU said they were concerned that if they gave us an extension to October nothing would happen until right before the deadline (like when you give a small child an extra half an hour to get ready to leave and they just mess about) and they were right. So very ashamed of our politicians.

It is really sad to see such sexist stuff spouted by MPs, blushed and applauded instead of condemned.
Women are not superior to men.

Neither is Nicolas Sturgeon but she is the head of a devolved administration and as such should have been included right from the start of this process.

So is Mark Drakeford.

Most of the women she wrote to, granted, are admirable and principled, but personally in a government of national unity I'd also like to see figures like Dominic Grieve and Michael Heseltine.

Indeed. Brexit is much too important an issue to be playing identity politics with. She has already fallen foul of the 'but what about' with regard to Dianne Abbott, who I do not think would be a suitable MP to involve. Lucas asked for such a response, however, with her silly starting point.

Anne Widdecombe is not a MP. She is also in favour of leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement.

Neither is Nicolas Sturgeon but she is the head of a devolved administration and as such should have been included right from the start of this process.

I'm very disappointed too. I'm not a big Green voter but have always respected her a lot. I think this divisive, a major misstep and comes across as not much more than a stunt. It also plays into the hands of the kind of frothers who call women man-haters if they raise any objections to male privilege/violence.

Most of the women she wrote to, granted, are admirable and principled, but personally in a government of national unity I'd also like to see figures like Dominic Grieve and Michael Heseltine.

Anna Soubry has taken a thoughtful stance in her response.

Surely the feminist position on this should be the best people for the job are in the cabinet.

In theory the people with best skills and experience for the role are those that have it.

I know it doesn't always work like that in practice, all that would change is inappropriate people who went to the right school would be replaced by inappropriate people who happen to be women. This is actually a backward step for feminism (my feminism at least in my view men and women are equal. It appears that some feminist veiws are that women are 'more equal' than men and I don't like that)

The cabinet should be chosen on ability and understanding from a pool of MPs chosen by the electorate, regardless of which sex they are or wgere the went to school.

How does it create cross-party cooperation if it specifically excludes the male MPs from those parties ?

Let's say I'm a male MP in the Shadow Cabinet. Why on Earth would I be inclined to lend my political support to an enterprise I would be specifically excluded from because of my sex.

Even better, let's say I'm an anti-Brexit Tory male MP (Dominic Grieve, for example). Why would I go against my party to support a cabinet I would be disallowed from on the basis of my sex, despite being pretty much the leading voice on the Tory side against Brexit / a No-Deal Brexit ?

To put the idea of an NUG in the headlines, all it requires is a few of the leading lights to suggest it - take your pick. Instead it is not the NUG which is being discussed, but why the parliamentary leader of the Green party has suddenly suggested an overtly-sexist agenda, with a side bit of (I would hope) unintentional racism by not including literally the senior female Labour MP (Diane Abbott) in the discussion ?