I note that Politics Home has reported that:
Labour leadership frontrunner Sir Keir Starmer should "stand side" to make way for a woman, the party's chairman has declared.
Ian Lavery, who is backing Sir Keir's main rival Rebecca Long-Bailey, called on the Shadow Brexit Secretary to quit the race so the party can pick its first-ever female leader.
I know quite a number of women who are leading thinkers on the left. Without exception all that I have spoken to on this issue object to the idea that Lavery is suggesting. They feel it deeply patronising. The idea that a woman can only win by having a man stand aside is deeply offensive to them. And such an approach will also fundamentally undermine any leader elected in this way in the eyes of the public whilst providing opponents with endless opportunity for attack.
Some in Labour really do need to think about what it is doing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If Lavery thinks Long Bailey is the best candidate he should allow her to win. Must allow her to win. There is a process within the party structure to decide the issue.
It is always acceptable to withdraw your own horse from a race, but to demand that someone else withdraws to allow your horse to win is a risible suggestion. Surely he has just demoralised his horse by special pleading.
It matters little who leads a party if the party will not be led.
Richard
Off-topic but you must have been delighted with the news that Prem Sikka is to be rewarded for his lifetime’s work on countering tax avoidance by being named on Labour’s dissolution honours list.
I appreciate that you being a Quaker with their Testimony to Equality and Simplicity you won’t go in for vainglorious titles but I’m sure Prem will enjoy making good use of his time in the House of Lords.
Prem and I have spoken and I have offered him my congratulations
Maybe Ian Lavery should step aside so that someone that isn’t a twit can become chairperson.
On the surface, it doesn’t seem that women are greatly disadvantaged in this contest, which surely would need to be the case to justify that kind of positive discrimination? Arguably, thee’s a case for saying that some folk feel Starmer is the most authoritative precisely because he is white and male and middle aged and… well, mebbe they do and mebbe they don’t, but there doesn’t seem to me to be any noticeable negativity attached to the women candidates by virtue of them being women.
But then, I too am white and male and middle aged… 🙂
If the Labour Party were to choose its leader purely on gender grounds, it’s in worse shape than I thought. Since when did leadership skills, political nous, experience etc cease to be relevant?
This is the world of identity politics…
As a member of the Labour Party I have no idea who I will vote for but it is quite obvious to me, given the Emily Thornberry interview on ‘The Andrew Neil Show’ this evening shows that every opportunity to discredit, rubbish and show they ‘are unfit to govern’ will pervade the political discourse over the coming years. Facts yes, such as FTSE ‘leaders’ earn in three days what it takes the average worker to earn in a year and Mr Neil can come up with the that they pay a greater amount to the income tax pot. Does he, as a supposedly sensible member of the populace, not realise that they are paid a much greater proportion of overall income.
Deeply patronising indeed. And absolutely wrong. Equality doesn’t mean getting rid of men!
Quite amusing that this should be suggested by Lavery himself though 😉
https://www.facebook.com/carwyn.jones3/
This is how a leader should behave…. Carwyn’s comments on LCM’s
Agreed
I am a woman. I am not in favour of choosing a woman for the sake of giving a woman the job because she is a woman.
Frankly that, to me, is as sexist as when in the past a man was always selected, as women were seen as inferior. Not even having the vote! Goodness, even as the chattel of men once married.
In this case, I admit, I prefer Kier Starmer because I see him giving Labour a far better chance of winning as others who are now voting for other parties did not see Corbyn as the right man for the job of leading the country; and as Long-Bailey is his right hand (wo)man, she will not appeal to the broader electorate in my view. I think those on the far left are in some kind of bubble believing they can win with someone who is in effect a substitute for Corbyn!
Hi Richard,
You might also wish to blog about this..?
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=470807260440686
Recommended buy maybe not a blog