The Labour Party leadership election

[Amethyst24]

Make leader, male deputy, male candidate for London Mayor. I fucking despair, I really do. I've been going on about this on social media and I can't seem to make myself shut up about it, it makes me so incredibly angry.

Amethyst - what it means is that the women haven't convinced Labour party voters that they are worth voting for.

What's the issue with that?

The issue with that is that we live in a patriarchy and women have to work so much harder than men to get the same amount of credibility.

"If a female candidate came along with JC's policies then I'd be voting for her. But she didn't."

Quite.

I hate all this kneejerk "Corbyn means Labour have already lost the next election".

What he's done, is ignited hope. It's what the SNP did during the referendum campaign - they presented Scotland with a different vision of what their country could be and as a result, thousands of people who hadn't voted for years - who hadn't even been on the electoral register - got on the electoral register, turned out and voted, and kicked the Westminster-based parties out of their country.

Political upheavals do happen.

But they're not caused by people who have conceded defeat before they've even stood up to fight. They're caused by people with hope; people who really believe that they can change things, that it's worth the fight, that they can win it.

Whether Corbyn will be an effective enough leader to be able to ignite that hope and get people to believe in him enough to get off their arses and vote, remains to be seen; but neither Yvette Cooper nor Liz Kendall were offering hope. Along with Burnham, they were offering more of the same. More of the inevitable drift of politics in the UK to the right. More surrender of basic values and principles of the Labour party to make them acceptable to an increasingly more shameless and aggressive right wing establishment who will only ever support a Labour party if they promise to ensure that any small tweaks they make to improve the lives of the majority, will not inconvenience the 1%. More inability to offer a different vision of what our society can be, because they are trammelled by the frames of the Overton window moving ever further to the right.

That's why I didn't vote for them. They were offering me efficient and slightly kinder management of a system designed for the benefit of the 1%. Corbyn is giving me hope that we might change the system and fit it for the needs of the 99%. I'd rather have hope and be disappointed, than give up before we've even started.

I don't see that they have to work any harder once they're on an election campaign. Getting to that point yes, but it's a level playing field from that point.
I agree with BIWI

I disagree that it's a level playing field at any point for women and men in politics tbh.

It is depressing that a woman probably couldn't have embraced Corbyn's politics and inspired people, because many people refuse to be inspired by a woman.

Yy to both your posts Basil.

Since there wasn't a female candidate standing with Corbyn 's politics we don't know whether people would have been inspired or not.

I think often the extreme left is pretty anti-women, either in policy or practice. The militant unions that keep certain industries a closed shop predominantly serve male-dominated positions (RMT, for eg). The various dalliances and associations with Islamism, which is certainly a misogynistic belief system. And this article from 2013 in interesting - if depressing - reading too.

The very fact that Liz Kendall (and to a lesser extent Yvette Cooper) had to counter misogynistic bollocks from the media and their opponents took up time and distracted from their policies and messages. This is an issue.

It's also an issue - a huge one for me - that the party couldn't get one woman in top position. Not one. Or even invite Kez Dugdale to speak at the conference today, just so there weren't exclusively male voices being heard.

Christine - I agree. Someone I was talking to about it on Twitter the other day used the word "unreconstructed" to describe many of the men in Labour, particularly in the North of England. I think that's pretty accurate (if more charitable than words I'd use).

More unreconstructed in the north of England? And what is this libel based on Amethyst?

"It's also an issue - a huge one for me - that the party couldn't get one woman in top position. Not one. Or even invite Kez Dugdale to speak at the conference today, just so there weren't exclusively male voices being heard."

I know where you are coming from but that's not how democracy works is it?

There were 3 women in the deputy race and 2 women in for leader. It's not like it's a BBC sports personality type vote, where there is only 1 women in 10 or whatever

I was saddened by this too (although I didn't vote for TJ, I did have YC and SC as my other first choice candidates). The people have spoken, and that's fine, and it will be interesting to see what happens- he has at least promised 50% of women in the shadow cabinet. I'm more worried about his foreign policy than anything else.

I've been around Labour and unions my whole life and there is still a deep vein of sexism on the left. Whether it's different to the right I don't know, but it is disappointing, as the party of equality. One of the biggest challenges to the equal pay act was men and the unions within the Labour movement and there's plenty of them still around. Even the selection process is heavily weighted towards those who are able to clear weekends and evenings for months to work the local party. That's harder if you have caring responsiblities, aren't rich and are not well connected.

Actually, to Mide7's point, I thought it was very impressive just how many women there were to vote for - all of whom were talented in their own way.

(I voted for 2 of them, because I thought they were brilliant candidates - but I didn't vote for them because they were women.)

The leader in today's Observer and Andrew Rawnsley's article in the same paper both make the same point - essentially his victory is a disaster for the Labour party and he is unelectable.

And that is the paper which is most sympathetic (other than of course The Morning Star)

Um...no The Observer often is not that 'sympathetic. You may be thinking of the Daily Mirror. Rawnsley is in the same pen as a few journos, who can't grasp the implications of 'change'.

Odd that I've had 3 conversations with adults and the line has been 'Oh I agree with what he says, but he's unelectable.'. Er...he wouldn't be if you followed your wishes and voted for him.

You say "total integrity" like that's a good thing, which is debatable. No doubt Corbyn's comments about Osama Bin Laden, his relationship with the IRA, his views on Palestine and Hamas and the like are also evidence of his "total integrity". Fine.

Scaremongering, tabloid induced twaddle. Britain is governed by a party hell bent on making the lives of millions of ordinary men and women worse. There is a huge battle to be fought. The gender of Labour's new leader is irrelevant their ability to offer an alternative to the socially and morally bankrupt ideology of the Tories is absolutely paramount.

I don't think it matters. It doesn't bother me in the least. Personality wise I liked Liz Kendall but not Yvette Cooper who came over as a bit feeble.

Pan, I agree with some of his policies and will listen to others with an open mind but I'd never be moved towards unilateral disarmament and I'd be very dubious about leaving Nato.

In shorthand I might say I like him and agree with lots of what he says but think he's unelectable - because I know myself and at the voting booth I could not vote for a party proposing him as PM.

I don't think it matters. It doesn't bother me in the least. Personality wise I liked Liz Kendall but not Yvette Cooper who came over as a bit feeble.

What a totally, totally fatuous comment.

You may be thinking of the Daily Mirror. Rawnsley is in the same pen as a few journos, who can't grasp the implications of 'change'.

I think you are interpreting "change" very loosely. There's no indication the vast majority of the country who are not members, registered supporters or affiliates of the Labour Party want what he offers. Indeed 40% of them don't want him either.

I think you are interpreting "change" very loosely. There's no indication the vast majority of the country who are not members, registered supporters or affiliates of the Labour Party want what he offers. Indeed 40% of them don't want him either.

Yes, but as we know under FPTP you don't need the support of the majority.

And the support for the IRA will be huge turn off for many people.

No matter what one thought of Thatcher for him to be fraternities with Gerry Adams a month after the Brighton bombing is mind-boggling.

And yes, the link below is to an article from the Spectator and of course it's right wing and is out to get him - but as they say- goodness it's easy.

It feels as if the SWP 1979 student group has just been elected. And the SWP 1979 student group would be as effective and as electable as he is.

From a personal point of view as a Unionist
, he is very dangerous. We would never have had a Better Together campaign if he had been Labour leader. Sturgeon can rightly point out the chance of Labour being the party in power in Westminster under him is non-existent. Hell she can even point out that the SNP isn't as bonkers as him and has at least a tenuous grasp on reality.
blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/stripping-the-bark-from-jeremy-corbyn-will-be-the-easiest-campaign-in-modern-political-history/

His views on Europe are deeply troubling too. And it's absurd to say it doesn't matter that there are no women in senior positions - FFS.

This is worth reading. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/13/women-politics-power-labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyn

The Better together campaign was a disaster for Labour as it made the party look like they were doing the Tories bidding.

And the support for the IRA will be huge turn off for many people.

Only if they believe the lies. The British government met with the IRA in the early 70's. Some people believe that talking to your enemies can bring peace. Its a shame it took the establishment 30 years to realize this. It was perfectly acceptable for Clinton, Major, Blair to deal with Sinn Fein.