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.

This is the equivalent of saying, "Stop fussing about women on the board - can't you see our heads of marketing and HR are both women, as are LOADS of middle managers and almost all the PAs."

deputy PM etc are often roles given to a minister with another job as well

Blair gave Deputy PM to Prescott. No-one thought it was a serious job. It was a sop to the left wingers.

Foreign and Home are slightly different, but Corby needs a shadow chancellor that backs him 100%, especially given the opinion of the rest of the PLP. Ultimately it was made necessary by the dissent already voiced.

He also needed to have one of the other leadership contenders in either Home or Foreign positions and that couldn't be one of the women, as they already ruled out serving. Now I am not commenting on if that was right or wrong, just that it happened.

So the choice was to remove Benn from the job, not because he isn't capable, but because he has a penis and I don't think that would have been the right call either.

I agree that the left haven't been very inclusive towards women and that needs to change, but that is very difficult to do within politics, as conservative women are looked on as "better" and more respectable than their left wing opponents and until this changes there will always be more strong right wing women than left in parliament.

All in all, I'm taking a wait and see attitude towards Corbyn. I'm inclined to believe that he can't get elected, but OTOH they also said that about Obama.

I am surprised by how completely unbothered I am about the lack of women in his shadow cabinet.

I am not here for identity politics and I don't see the value of supporting women on principal. Theresa May and Margaret Thatcher are women (and possibly sociopaths), who have done women are huge amount damage.

I also think Yvette Cooper, Stella Creasy and Liz Kendall are drowning in a mediocrity.

We will probably see another tory female leader before labour or libems lol.

I just find it crazy that the people running must have so many yes people around them that they are so out of touch with the electorate and party that so wants anything but tory lite.

Was the supporting the Tory 12 billion tory cuts to show they are 'tough' or something?

"I also think Yvette Cooper, Stella Creasy and Liz Kendall are drowning in a mediocrity."

More mediocre than some of those picked, XX?

Yes

Why is having women in these positions important if they are not advocating for women? What use is having come from a poor family if you are dismantling the welfare state?

I voted from Jeremy and Andy, if I recall correctly the only woman I voted for was Diane Abbott.

Of course this is a convenient conviction to discover, but I think JC has said that he rejects the traditional hierarchy of the roles, pointing out that the idea of the 'big 4' comes from a c.19th, imperial context -- and that roles such as health secretary etc are hugely important in that they impact on the lives of everyone in the country.

His final cabinet does, I think, have at least 50% women and Angela Eagle's role is a pretty prominent one - leaving aside the honorific title, if she is going to represent Corbyn at PMQs then that's putting her in a pretty significant and highly visible position.

Also pretty pleased with the creation of the new cabinet position of shadow minister for mental health.

I don't know. I think nicknack's points demonstrate that with each of the big 4 roles he was between a rock and a hard place. And I think if I had to choose between a female chancellor and one of was 100% behind his anti-austerity economic plans... hmm.

Having women - good women, bad women, mediocre women, left wing women, right wing women - in prominent positions is important because good, bad, mediocre, left and right wing men currently dominate those positions.

That's a broader point than JC's shadow cabinet.

"I am surprised by how completely unbothered I am about the lack of women in his shadow cabinet"

Have I missed something? I thought that his cabinet was largely made up by women??

nicknack Why does he have to have one of the other leadership candidates as home or foreign?

Hama - he doesn't. Especially as they're all so equal and there are no "top jobs" any more. Yet, curiously, it's not Andy Burnham who's Shadow Minister for Mental Health.

This is a fascinating read news.sky.com/story/1552307/corbyns-cabinet-chaos-the-inside-story

Here's the full list

John McConnell thinks Bobby Sands was a hero

Lords Faulkner and Bassam are back! There's a blast from the past...

Hovis, it might be a convenient conviction to discover but it does ring true with the more consensual style of politics he wants to create. And it is very true that health and education are not negligible positions. I'm still watching.

John McConnell has a lot of financial experience. He may have said a lot of stupid things in the past but I think he may be OK.

To be fair to Corbyn -- his cabinet is more than 50% women, Cameron's is less than 32%. Cameron has Theresa May in Home Secretary but Defence, Business, and Health (which are prominent positions) are all men, whereas in Corbyn's cabinet they're all women.

I'm not saying his cabinet is perfect by any means.

And sod the snide comment about shadow secretary for mental health. Because it's not a job Andy Burhnam wouldn't have it's an insulting job to give a woman? Luciana Berger is eleven years younger than Burnham. I think it's a fantastic brief for an ambitious politician - she can literally make it her own.

Yonic I am interested in dismantling systems of oppression, not improving my position within it.

I'm not a Labour party supporter and I didn't vote for Corbyn, but the fact that the right are coming out and attacking him for not having enough women in his cabinet when theirs is actually more unequal in its gender balance strikes me as a real 'people in glass houses' situation.

I'm massively in favour of women being in top positions, and of course it is important. But political engagement with feminist issues doesn't end there, and it matters so, so much whether the policies are favourable to women as well as the personnel decisions. There is need for real intent to improve the lives of the majority of women in the country - and I would point to this document as evidence of that intent on Corbyn's part, with policies aimed at narrowing pay inequalities, instituting universal childcare, challenging gender stereotypes to increase the number of women in male-dominated professions and reinstating services for DV victims:

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jeremyforlabour/pages/87/attachments/original/1438076296/WorkingWithWomen.pdf?1438076296

Finally, it is worth stating that study after study has shown that austerity has a disproportionately negative effect on women. Therefore, an anti-austerity stance is arguable a feminist one. To hear those who have been responsible for cuts that represent a sustained onslaught against women suddenly becoming determined feminists today makes me sick.

Here is a brief summary of the evidence behind that argument that austerity affects women more adversely than it affects men:

www.womensviewsonnews.org/2015/06/women-continue-to-pay-for-austerity/

And here is the website of A Fair Deal For Women - an umbrella-group of over 10 major womens' charities campaigning on this issue:

fairdealforwomen.com/

And finally, Warwick's summary of dozens of other reports and news articles which reach similar conclusions:

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/projects/spendingcuts/resources/database/reportsgroups/#Women