to say its about time labour elected its first female leader.

[confussssed]

they never have elected a female leader dont reply Harriet harman as she was intrem and not elected.
aibu to think its so sexist of the labour party to not elect a female leader since the conservatives elected there first female leader on 11th of February 1975 in the 33 years and 15,973 days since then labour have never had an elected female leader. they have had 8 different male leaders and 10 different elections.
also it cant be because the general population is sexist as we have had 4 of the last 10 general elections won by females. please can any labour supporters explain why they never have had a female leader and why it is not obvious sexism.

@FireworksAndSparklers

How does a woman "act like a man" to paraphrase you? The only difference between men and women are their chromosomes.

I don't think any woman or any man should be appointed to any post for any reason other than merit and merit alone. If merit means appointing a man, then it should be a man. If it means it's a woman, then it should be a woman.

No, they should appoint the best person for the job, regardless of their gender

Funny how that's always a man isn't it?

Funny how that's always a man isn't it?

Theresa May is a man?

Judge people by what they have between their ears, not their legs!

Completely agree!

The way Labour are going their first 'Woman' leader will probably have won the world cycling championships too

Theresa May is a man?

I think we're talking about the Labour party having been unable in the last 40 years or so to come up with a female leader.

Apparently the Tory misogynist bastards are better at it.
Not only can they find female leaders, they can find female leaders that non-party members are willing to vote for in a general election.

What a pity that Labour who claim to be so much more enlightened haven't managed it even once.

The way the labour party are regarding the self I.D thing the next non male leader will probably be a man who believes he's a better woman than women.

Yvette Cooper would be good.
Much better than that wet blanket Corbyn.

The leader should be the best person for the job.

I'd far rather it be a man than the likes of May or Thatcher who have consistently implemented policies that have disproportionately disadvantaged women.

Amazing, isn't it, that the Torys have managed to have two female PMs and not once has the best person for the Labour leadership been a woman?

Imo neither of the Tory women leaders were the best person for the job. Especially Thatcher, who decimated whole swathes of the country economically.

Perversely though, her actions had the effect of politicising a lot of women who had previously followed very traditional roles. The impact of the miners' strike on women in communities was incredible, it really galvanised them.

think of it this way men and women should have an equal shot so 1 election 50 percent chance of being a man or a women. 2nd election 25 percent of not having a women 10th election 0.1 percent chance and obviously some of there leaders have been complete losers and the fact of the 4 'great offices of state' labour have had 2 females for about the total of 3 years

given that Labour and Momentum in particular don't actually know what a woman is, I think it unlikely. They are more likely to shoehorn in a trans identifying man over a well qualified woman.

*I think we're talking about the Labour party having been unable in the last 40 years or so to come up with a female leader.

Apparently the Tory misogynist bastards are better at it.*

I still think that all jobs should be given to people on merit and merit alone. And I am not, by the way, saying that Labour men have all been more perfect for the job than women would have been. All I am saying is that I disagree with any premise that starts with "we need a woman for this job". I think that it should always be about the best person for the job. Any job. But, perhaps, even more importantly for that particular job as either Labour or Conservative party leader can end up being our PM. So I honestly don't care if it's a man, a woman, gay or straight, disabled or fully able bodied, ethnic minority or not... etc, etc... All I care about is that it's the best and the most capable person for the job.

Diane Abbott for PM would be fantastic

Diane Abbot says 5 out of 3 people agree with you.

We shouldn't have a female labour leader just because conservatives have had two.
That doesn't make labour sexist. If the conservatives have had two female leaders it's because at the time they were the best for the job. Clearly the ones best for the job so far for labour have been male.

As long as those running for leadership are being treat equally regardless of gender then it should simply come down to who will do the job the best. What difference does it make as long as males and females get equal opportunities?

If I had to choose a leader I wouldn't pick a female because its about time we had one, I would pick whoever convinced me enough they could do the job best, male or female, the gender would be irrelevant.

neither of the Tory women leaders were the best person for the job. Especially Thatcher, who decimated whole swathes of the country economically. Perversely though, her actions had the effect of politicising a lot of women who had previously followed very traditional roles. The impact of the miners' strike on women in communities was incredible, it really galvanised them.

Galvanised them into doing what? In 1983, Thatcher and the Tories won a second term in office, with 397 seats to Labour's 209. The Tory share of vote was 42% with 13 million and Labour 27% with 8.45 million. In 1987, two years after the miners' strike, Thatcher and the Tories won their third term in office, with 376 seats to Labour's 229. Vote share was 42% to 30%, 13.7 million to 10 million.

Which gives two conclusions. First, whatever the effect she had on the country, an historic third consecutive victory would suggest Thatcher WAS the right person to lead the Tories. Second, that Kinnock WAS the wrong person to lead Labour.

Sorry, bold fail there, first paragraph is quoting LakieLady

Imo neither of the Tory women leaders were the best person for the job. Especially Thatcher, who decimated whole swathes of the country economically

This may be true, but statistically you'd have thought that Labour could have by now come up with a competent, electable, female leader who wouldn't have been economically disastrous.

There must be a reason why they haven't.

That doesn't make labour sexist. If the conservatives have had two female leaders it's because at the time they were the best for the job. Clearly the ones best for the job so far for labour have been male. youre joking right some of the labour leaders have been alfull lost 7 out of the last 10 elections and the one that won 3 is hardly seen as a great leader anymore.

Neither Labour nor Liberal Democrats have succeeded in supporting women in endeavours to get the top job in their parties. Really is pathetic when you consider the Conservatives, Green, Plaid Cymru, SNP, DUP & Sinn Fein have all managed to do this.

So it comes down to two reasons...either the women who are attracted to support the Labour party aren't worthy of leadership. Or, far more likely the Labour party is so entrenched in misogynistic and other worrying behaviour that they cannot support the idea of a woman leading them. I'm going to place a bet down the bookies that the first 'woman' leader of labour will have been born a male.

My local Labour MP who I didn't vote for because of Corbyn is actually turning out to be a decent MP. She listens to her constituents and has disobeyed a 3 line party whip to do so. It's only her first run at being an MP and so far I have to admit she's pretty good. They should be giving women like her, who work hard to make things better an equal platform to their male counterparts instead of making them fight to have a voice.

Then we can know the best person got the job, and not just because they were placed there for being a woman, or got the job because of male privilege.

No, the best person should be picked. I don’t want someone chosen just becuase they have a vagina.

No, the best person should be picked. I don’t want someone chosen just becuase they have a vagina.

but they clearly dont pick based on that criteria assuming you believe any election has a 50 percent chance of a female winning.

Neither Labour nor Liberal Democrats have succeeded in supporting women in endeavours to get the top job in their parties. Really is pathetic when you consider the Conservatives, Green, Plaid Cymru, SNP, DUP & Sinn Fein have all managed to do this.

To be fair to the LDs, they've only existed since 1988 and have never had anything remotely approaching the same number of MPs as Labour or the Tories. They do have a female deputy leader though, which Labour have only managed twice (and the Tories never). Two of the party's Presidents have been female.

When it comes to the House of Lords, only one third of the 186 Tory peers are female. Of Labour's, 44% are female. Of LDs' 64, 54% are female.

My DP, a few of my friends and myself have joked regularly to each other that the Tories will elect a BAME leader years and years before Labour elects a woman.

And no they won't be acting white whatever that is...