Why the Labour Party will not elect a woman

[PersonaNonGarter]

Just seen the Britain Elects poll of Labour members. Keir Starmer ahead on 31% with Rebecca Long Bailey on 20% and Jess Philips on 11%.

The Labour Party is too male. Even though women desperately need representation, Labour continue to romanticise heavy industry (manly) over the needs of eg retail workers (woman’s work). And even the recent Woke intake are steeped in this rose tinted Marxist Down Pit crap that lauds traditionally male roles.

So yeah the candidates might look like the women are putting on a good show. But a man will win.

Abbott gets attacked because of her skin colour

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

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.

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?

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 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."

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

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 🤷‍♀️.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Keir Starmer will not lead the party to recovery. He made the mess of Labour’s Brexit that they are all claiming cost them the election.

He’s Tony Blair without the charisma, freshness or dynamism.

or right wing political views.

He doesn't need to be Tony Blair. He needs to be Neil Kinnock and do the ground work, the clearing and the preparation for the next leader to fight the General Election.

I couldn't care less if it's a woman or not, I want the best candidate for the job and someone electable

I've talked about this for a while. There are three problems here with Labour.

1. It's institutionally sexist
2. it's too woke
3. it has a problem not with female voters but with male voters

Labours solution to its institutional sexism is not a desire to solve the problem but to want to make a pr statement about the next leader being female.

This is not a solution. It's spin and many people can see through it.

The same way they can see through the bullshit of gender identity being inheritely sexist. So it puts off sensible headed men and women.

The woke tokenism really doesn't play well with a large part of the electorate. It's not a right wing thing but an issue with not reflecting lived experiences and being classist against the working classes for whom this bullshit pr nonsense works against most. It undermines trust.

People know when it's a pile of shite.

Also woke identity politics is particularly undesirable to men ironically. If you look at voting patterns women are voting for Labour in increasing numbers whilst men are turning to more right wing parties.

Thus the idea that a woman leader will increase vote share is arguably bullshit. Particularly if she is seen to be leader because of woke bullshit pr rather than because she's a cracking good leader. And sadly many (but not all) of the potential female candidates in the mix are decidedly crap.

The party has to work out how to appeal more to older white males rather than younger women who already lean toward the party.

There is a problem within Labour and sexism but the entire idea that a female leader will magically change the party's fortunes is so far off the mark its crazy.

I don't think the problem is with "a woman" pre se, but the misogyny vibes that Labour's left give off.

Thatcher and May did not become Prime Ministers because they were women, but because, when the chips were down, they were the candidates that were most acceptable to their Parliamentary parties. MP's may like to talk about diversity, but more than anything they want to keep their jobs.

Labour have three problems. First the system for choosing leaders is different, and many of those involved in the selection, will prioritise ideology, and the continuation of the Corbyn project, over electability. Second the women being touted by the left wing are inevitably tainted by their failure to stand up to some of the less attractive features of the current left including anti-semitism and misogyny. Third that the last election means that many Labour MPs who understood the world outside urban centres, are gone. The most remarkable swing to the Tories was from the lower paid and unemployed. (From memory about 13%) These are not natural Tory voters, and a sensible, non ideological, pragmatic Labour leader could win them back.

In another world, perhaps one which had the Tory approach to selecting leaders and before the recent rout in the northern constituencies, you might see someone like Yvette Cooper coming to the fore, with a good chance of then being elected PM. Not because she is a woman but because she would appeal to the centre ground. The voters targeted by Blair and Mandelson. RLB will not, and it is nothing to do with her sex.

Thatcher got slated for a long list of actual things before she was slagged off for her appearance. I can only assume Thatcher is only a historical figure to the poster who made that observation.

it is interesting that Labour makes efforts to ensure candidates are female, and the Tories don't. But Labour ties itself in knots worrying why it can't choose a female leader. And the Tories don't give a shit, but somehow did, twice.

He doesn't need to be Tony Blair. He needs to be Neil Kinnock and do the ground work, the clearing and the preparation for the next leader to fight the General Election

Exactly. I'm not sure who the new "Blair" will be

I would like to see a left wing party get back into ascendancy who are defined more by a love of working class and poorer people as opposed to being more motivated by a hatred of the rich.

If that happens to be ushered in by a woman I’m all for it.

@Tanith has nailed it on Starmer:

He doesn't need to be Tony Blair. He needs to be Neil Kinnock and do the ground work, the clearing and the preparation for the next leader to fight the General Election.

Starmer can pick Johnson apart in the Commons and has a good command of the Brexit brief so can analyse all the fuck ups as they happen and challenge the Johnson narrative. In the absence of sparkling charisma, I'll take competence and high level analytical ability any day.