Why the Labour Party will not elect a woman

I think it was a real pity Theresa May toned down what she wore. She had a really quirky style- sometimes she got it wrong - but that is inevitable for anyone who takes a chance on style.

There is so much ignorance spouted about anyone who takes an interest in clothes- and feminists are just as bad - the lip service about being free to wear what you want is always tempered by the insistent air of superiority that women who do care about clothes don't make up their own minds because they are brainwashed by the patriarchy.

On another matter I note that the Eagle sisters seem to have vanished. I don't need another reason to despise Corbyn but his misogynistic treatment of Maria Eagle was more proof that he really isn't the nice man he pretends to be.

If you look at this wiki page it shows the political parties in the UK. Of the ten parties who have seats at Westminster, only one of them has never had a proper* female leader.
It really is time they played catch-up.

• Margaret Beckett and Harriet Harman were each allowed to be acting/interim for a short period of time

Unfortunately both got slated and often on there appearance.

Agree with this 100% tonglong. A good example of this was Theresa May’s leather trousers. She got slated for their appearance, cost and the ‘tone’ when most of the country could not afford to buy similar. However, nothing was said about George Osborne and David Cameron’s hand made suits.

We have had 2 women as PM. Unfortunately both got slated and often on there appearance. Have never heard much celebration for either of them which is a shame.

I think we should look at the fit between the sex of the party leader and how well that fits in with the wider party culture. I just checked and the number of Labour women MPs is now 104 out of a total of 202. This is primarily due to the effects of policies such as all women shortlists.

Proportionally there have always been fewer Lib Dem women MPs than Conservative women MPs so I never saw electing Jo Swinson as leader as a hopeful sign. As others have said, Rebecca Long Bailey is so associated with Jeremy Corbyn that I don’t see that electing a woman leader would help Labour become more appealing to women.

The Labour leadership needs to read this thread. I think I am right in thinking that a huge reason for Labour winning in 1997 was because for the first time more women voted Labour than for the Conservatives. They really need to consider why so many on this thread and the electorate as so opposed to them and why it’s not just about having a woman leader but about policies as a whole.

Following their “Demon Eyes” attack on Tony Blair, they began something similar with Gordon Brown when he became PM.
They quickly dropped it when it was pointed out that GB is partially sighted.

So you'd like somebody unelectable to do the job. What a surprise.

I'd like to feel like I have a choice during an election, currently, I feel as if I'm being forced to vote Conservative.

Regarding shoes, even if she were wearing odd shoes all the time, I wouldn't see that as an issue, everyone's entitled to have comfortable feet (I can still remember fighting like hell to wear flat-bottomed shoes at work, not gaudy trainers, simply a leather shoe without a high heel) and, in her case, it seems like an honest mistake, which is why I qualified with 'at all times'. Regarding personal presentation, I've seen a lot of scorn poured out on her for the way she speaks and acts during interviews, this again doesn't seem like a fair criticism.

You're suggesting that saying a leader should wear matching shoes is like expecting a blind person to see.

I'm saying that appearance is essentially immaterial, it's her character and policies which should matter.

Not really, I'm being sarcastic.

Thank you for clarifying, I almost completely misunderstood.

Starmer isn't that great IMHO. Too slick. (And fwiw I've never liked Corbyn)
Cooper would have a chance but she doesn't appear to be running 🤷‍♀️.

Ooh thanks Mysterian you put that much better than I did!

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Change the last bit to "...but by their ability to get dressed in the morning."

Yeah I wouldn't be impressed with anybody who can't put matching shoes on, male, female, black, white, other... If you're over 3 years of age and NT that's just fucking dumb. Not who I want in charge of the government or as the country's representation abroad.

I'm not a Labour supporter but, So you'd like somebody unelectable to do the job. What a surprise.
regarding the criticisms of Diane Abbott, does a woman's Trying to imply sexism, because I wouldn't criticise a man for wearing odd shoes? ability to present herself 'correctly' 'Correctly' in little apostrophies? Are you suggesting that matching shoes is a bit fussy?
in interviews and/or ensure they're wearing matching shoes at all times really matter when it comes to effectively leading a political party? Does kind of suggest a certain difficulty in thinking.
Imagine if David Blunkett had been passed over for a cabinet position because he 'couldn't hold eye contact'. You're suggesting that saying a leader should wear matching shoes is like expecting a blind person to see. Yes. Sure. Exactly the same. Not really, I'm being sarcastic. You're suggesting odd shoe wearing is akin to a disability?

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Abbot which have nothing to do with her colour.

That would be fine but when people bring up shoes, how she speaks and other 'issues' of that nature, it undermines their other criticisms almost as directly as them bringing up her skin colour.

Abbott gets attacked because of her skin colour

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Abbot which have nothing to do with her colour.

or Ian Duncan-Smith was refused a knighthood because he was caught eating his own bogeys in the HoC?
IDS gets away with a disgusting act, and yet Abbott gets attacked because of her skin colour.

I'm not a Labour supporter but, regarding the criticisms of Diane Abbott, does a woman's ability to present herself 'correctly' in interviews and/or ensure they're wearing matching shoes at all times really matter when it comes to effectively leading a political party? Imagine if David Blunkett had been passed over for a cabinet position because he 'couldn't hold eye contact'.

Well we will have to disagree on what is considered "left leaning". In a UK context it was.

But anyone banging on about how the UK isn't socialist enough is on a hiding to nothing.

1945 was never left-leaning. As you say it was necessity and after that it returned Churchill in '51, I think.

We have never lived in a left-leaning country. It's just fact

We did in 1945 but that was utterly unique and necessary in that time and circumstances.

Yes to Y Cooper. And yes to admiring Jess P but no to her ever gaining a Parliamentary majority.

Abbott is unelectable. I think most people in the country would be reluctant to vote for somebody who wears mis-matched shoes.

Labour has only ever had one person elected prime minister in the last 45 yrs - Blair. This means that the issue isn't Labour, but the country

I’d say this means the opposite, the issue IS Labour

I think the problem with some of the left is they don't really understand the real significance of the 1945 election.

The 1945 election result was inevitable and necessary - a complete game changer for everyone. Everyone's life was improved- even the very rich benefited from the NHS and welfare care.
Few suffered although in later years some people were subjected to excessive death duties - no one should be forced to sell their home to pay a tax which wasn't even caused by an event they were responsible for. There is no moral justification for taking what a person has built up over their lifetime just because they are dead.

However that election having effected a huge sea change did what it was meant to- society as a whole was immeasurably improved. Poor and working class people were given hope and opportunities and allowed to aspire to a better life.

And of course the Allies owed a huge debt to the Soviet Union for the victory in WWII but it didn't take long to realise that Communism does not work - at best it's bureaucratic and inefficient and at worst as bad as the Nazis.

Hence Corbynism, effectively Marxism, although obviously without labour camps, isn't going to appeal. Corbyn is a big fan of Latin American communists but he fails to understand no-one wants to be Venezuela.

We have never lived in a left-leaning country. It's just fact. And that's a fact that isn't about to change any time soon, so 'blaming the electorate' is just about the most stupid thing you can do.

Starmer presents as electable and esp so as RLB is the 'Corbyn continuity of failure' candidate. The college politics of 'protest group' is a direction of unelectability.

In this case I think Kier Starmer has more universal appeal than the other two candidates. I think Yvette Cooper would be a better option. It’s nothing to do with them being women. RLB is very far left and Jess Philips is too outspoken to be a leader, she’s not got the diplomacy required. She is a brilliant back bencher constantly challenging and upsetting the status quo.

Labour clearly needs a leader with wider appeal who will bring them back to the centre left