Should Burnham commit to 50% female cabinet ministers?

[JoyousOpalLemur]

The Women's Parliamentary Labour Party, which members of Andy Burnham's team are members of, has said the next government must be 50% male and 50% female.

They are particularly concerned that sacking Rachel Reeves will feed into a Labour culture of misogyny if she is not replaced with a woman, or if other senior posts currently held by men are not given to women.

Do you think this is a good idea?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn07ew5n2jro

Agree his ethnicity and sex are irrelevant.

I don't know why I would replace him with, there don't seem to be many good options within the Labour party as you say, which will be a problem Burnham will have to face immediately.

Maybe Burnham will replace Lammy with Angela Rayner, now her little tax problem has been resolved?

I don’t think it’s a bad idea and am waiting for the day that the Labour Party is actually led by a woman. A biological female, just in case there’s any misunderstanding!

Rachel Reeves’ budgetary choices as Chancellor have been disappointing but the misogyny towards her started well before her first budget, even here on Mumsnet.

‘Rachel from Accounts’; patronising indeed.

I find it interesting that the left supports a policy of quotas and positive discrimination. Whereas the right supports a policy of merit and "colour blindness ".

Looking at the results the Conservatives have had three female leaders - Thatcher, May and Badinoch (four if you have to include Liz Truss 🫣) and two leaders of colour - Sunak and Badinoch. They were not given the job because of quotas but because they were the best people for the job (with the exception of Liz Truss who was as mad as a box of frogs).

Meanwhile Labour has never had a female leader and never had a leader of colour.

Ironically the left despite all their love of diversity and quotas, the results show that they are more racist than the right and their preference of colour blindness and merit.

No, he should appoint who.he believes is the best person for each role.

Quote : "Female, working class politicians who are guided by critical theory have no interest in developing a better understanding of the life experiences of middle class people or people with family wealth."

Is that not why people vote for labour ?

Female working class politicians have massive amounts of experience - of being a working class female. That is why they are elected . They are not elected by middle class with family wealth usually. And while they are supposed to represent all constituents, they are also supposed to deliver on the manifesto they campaigned for. And I don't think working class women labour candidates usually campaign on Tory middle class manifestos.

After all, middle class people can vote Tory if their main thing is about keeping their inherited family wealth intact.

No, it's partly box-ticking that's caused so many of the country's problems, i.e. recruitment/decision making by box ticking rather than getting the best person for the job or the best decision for the majority.

All forms of positive discrimination should be banned by law.

We need to break down the barriers to get to true equality, not provide leg-ups to people who aren't the best suited just because of box-ticking.

We need equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

If 100% of the cabinet were women because they were the best candidates, I'd be all for it, likewise if it were 100% man. But promoting/appointment someone due to box ticking when there's someone better who ticks fewer boxes should be outlawed.

Yes on both counts Labour are behind. Diversity rn for them is Burnham’s accent rather than North London PM.

Absolute nonsense.

I am a Labour voter and I have commented earlier to say that it needs to be the best people for the job.

However, also as per my earlier comment I don't believe that the best people for the job can possibly always be white, privileged men and women who have gone to private schools and have no experience of real life, having normal jobs or running businesses but have the 'right' accent and connections. Which is unfortunately what most cabinet members and advisers have been so far.

The Conservatives have been equally guilty of only promoting this type of people by the way...

Lots of middle class Liberals vote Labour, even if that works against them economically sometimes.

Lots of working class people vote Conservative if they identify with certain Conservative values, even if they might be better off financially with Labour in power.

Great leaders understand they can't make assumptions about who will vote for them, they have to work on policies that are good for the whole country and have widespread appeal.

It’s not nonsense. Labour have only had white, male leaders.

I think he should commit to a 50% biological woman representation. The skills required aren't innately sex based, but women can be under represented.

I don't think that's true.

There was a poll recently that showed Labour were struggling with working class support - something like at only 9%, while their entire base is now middle class (think gender activists living in Brighton or a young mother with a lawyer husband living in gentrified Dulwich).

If a general election was held and only middle class people could vote, Labour would be the largest party.

If a general election was held and only working class people could vote, Labour would be wiped out.

The last thing we need is women who aren’t the right people for a role being put in there to meet the targets. I don’t know why this group can think otherwise. It’s more important that the cabinet minster appointment process is fair - so that women who are the best fit for the role aren’t overlooked in favour of men who aren’t as capable. But that works the other way too that a less suitable woman doesn’t get a role to meet targets.

Quite. The best person for the job, irrespective of anything else. That's what equality is all about.

Although he might be jumping the gun a bit since he isn't actually PM, and he won't want to put anyone's nose out of joint just yet.😂

Angela Rayner was Deputy PM before him.

Given that it's Labour we're talking about, I don't think it matters. They are, and continue to be, a shambles, so we're just rearranging the deckchairs.

It is nonsense to claim that Labour are racist.

What absolute box ticking rot. As most of it is. What next? Of the 50%, 25% need to be of ethnic backgrounds? So many disabled?
we really need to get away from labelling people and just give the bloody job to whoever can do it best.

I wouldn’t put a quota, but I would make every senior male Labour member folllow a training on sex equality, it’s still a largely misogynistic organisation.

@EasternStandard So the women need to buck up a bit. Mostly they haven’t been great leaders or thinkers. Someone outstanding could be leader but there isn’t anyone.

DEI has to be binned, it’s led to a shambles. We need meritocracy with stringent standards, and nothing less than that.

There is and has been in the conservatives but Labour are slow off the mark on diversity for leaders.

I was listening to someone talk about how the best way to do it is encourage women to enter when they’re younger, uni age, especially good communicators etc

Foster talent rather than Labour’s approach.

I have been perplexed as to why nobody has been considering Yvette Cooper for PM. As well as all her previous experience in and out of government she has recently held two of the Great Offices of State, still does of course. She is an excellent academic, she writes and nobody seems to dislike her. I don't get it ....

why not 100% women ?

This.

Much better they have people actually capable of doing the job.