/ Sexual Equality

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
FesteringSore - on 08 Oct 2016
Labour profess to be a party that promotes, among other things, sexual equality.

Under the Conservatives the United Kingdom has had two female prime ministers. Labour have not even had a female party leader.

Just a thought.
27
Trevers - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

Perhaps Labour simply haven't had the right woman for the job at the right time?
4
FesteringSore - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

Who knows? Yet Corbyn seems quick to surround himself with Jezza-Belles. Then there were the Blair Babes.
Wanderer100 - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

They had their chance with Harriet Harman but she was overshadowed by Blair and Brown. She would have been a credible leader given the chance.
>
7
Greasy Prusiks on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

I agree that labour need to elect a female leader. It's embarrassing that they haven't.

It's worth saying though that they have more female mps than any other party and a higher percentage of female mps.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/female-members-of-parliament.htm
7
Bootrock on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

No they don't. They need to elect someone who is the best for the job.

If that happens to be a woman, then so be it.

I don't get you liberals, you go on about equality, yet you blatantly discriminate in your own terms.

Christ, you all gob off about equality, then spend God knows how much time talking about how Theresa May would make a good prime minister because she's a mother?

No one voted for a male candidate because they are a "good dad". Honestly. Get an actual grip. You regressive left types are the reason the military and public services are in rag order with this blatant disregard of skills and pushing gender over the best for the job.
You can't just throw a number of women into something and say look, look how diverse we are.

The "equal" thing to do would be to look at the skills brought to the table, and look at them blind of sex, religion or colour. You can't just demand a quota of certain people.


You demand equality, but equality on your terms.



18
Lemony - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Christ, you all gob off about equality, then spend God knows how much time talking about how Theresa May would make a good prime minister because she's a mother?

Yeah, I distinctly remember all the conversations with the lefty liberals banging on about how good a prime minister Theresa May would be.
1
elsewhere on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
> Christ, you all gob off about equality, then spend God knows how much time talking about how Theresa May would make a good prime minister because she's a mother?

Why would anybody who is aware of news coverage be talking about May being "a good prime minister because she's a mother"?

2
Scotch Bingington - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> Why would anybody who is aware of news coverage be talking about May being "a good prime minister because she's a mother"?

An idiot?
1
NathanP - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> ... you all gob off about equality, then spend God knows how much time talking about how Theresa May would make a good prime minister because she's a mother?..."

Actually it was Andrea Leadsom saying she would be a better Conservative leader and PM then Theresa May because she (Leadsom) was a mother. IIRC, May has spoken about her regret at not having children.
2
L Ripley - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Christ, you all gob off about equality, then spend God knows how much time talking about how Theresa May would make a good prime minister because she's a mother?

She's not a mother, and nobody in favour of equality has said anything about her female rival making a better PM because of being a mother.

2
John_Hat - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Christ, you all gob off about equality, then spend God knows how much time talking about how Theresa May would make a good prime minister ........Get an actual grip..........You regressive left types are the reason the military and public services are in rag order..................

Yes Dear.

4
L Ripley - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

Being in favour of equality, you'll have noticed that the cuts which have been (and continue to be) made since the coalition was in power have affected women more harshly than men?
6
Greasy Prusiks on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

First off I don't really feel I can speak for all liberal regressive lefties as there's so many of us so I'll just respond to the bits that relate to my post.

You say...

"You can't just throw a number of women into something and say look, look how diverse we are.

The "equal" thing to do would be to look at the skills brought to the table, and look at them blind of sex, religion or colour. You can't just demand a quota of certain people. "

...and on this I completely agree with you. To me it's inconceivable that labour could be applying this and still have found that every leader should be a man.

Of course they shouldn't say "we need a woman which of you wants a job" but it does their credibility a lot of damage to never having elected one.


That's my thoughts anyway, I suspect we may have to agree to disagree!
3
L Ripley - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Ripley:

> She's not a mother, and nobody in favour of equality has said anything about her female rival making a better PM because of being a mother.

These dislikes are funny, this is factually correct. ;-)
3
JJL - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Honestly. Get an actual grip.

hahahahahha

Are you 12?
4
Bootrock on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Ripley:

But either way, a conversation about being a good dad or not would not even come into question.

So why is anyone even talking about it, why is it even in question, why even uttered.

And no, I am not 12...

6
Andy Morley - on 08 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> Perhaps Labour simply haven't had the right woman for the job at the right time?

I'd say it's because Conservatism as the political party most representative of the capitalist system is more about pragmatism and 'what works' whereas the Labour Party is more about theory, being aligned to concepts such as 'social justice' and theoretical approaches to the distribution of wealth, power and other resources. So it's unsurprising that the Labour party might be all about having lots of female prime-ministers in theory, even if they don't in practice and that the Conservative party might have actual female prime-ministers in practice, if they're the right person for the job, even though theoretically they might not be at all focussed on such issues.
2
L Ripley - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> But either way, a conversation about being a good dad or not would not even come into question.

You're right.

> So why is anyone even talking about it, why is it even in question, why even uttered.

That's a very good point, it was brought up by May's rival who is also female - on here one can only guess why she brought it up, but it wouldn't be news that there's societal issues around women and children and their working roles (how they juggle being a mum with work) which don't apply to men. It wasn't fair of her to bring it up, most definitely so.

> And no, I am not 12...

I never said you were 12.
Lion Bakes on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> And no, I am not 12...

You are Adrian Mole, 13 3/4 and I claim my 5

2
Bootrock on 09 Oct 2016
L Ripley - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
She says that she's sure feminist organisations etc have helped her along the way, after saying she doesn't see herself as a feminist, or let herself be defined by being a women...what other people define being a woman as.

I'm not sure what your point is?
Post edited at 21:50
marsbar - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

You missed the mumsnet effect then. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02676/Tony_Blair_childre_2676526k.jpg

Many many pictures of call me Tony and the kids.
Jon Stewart - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

> I'd say it's because Conservatism as the political party most representative of the capitalist system is more about pragmatism and 'what works' whereas the Labour Party is more about theory, being aligned to concepts such as 'social justice' and theoretical approaches to the distribution of wealth, power and other resources. So it's unsurprising that the Labour party might be all about having lots of female prime-ministers in theory, even if they don't in practice and that the Conservative party might have actual female prime-ministers in practice, if they're the right person for the job, even though theoretically they might not be at all focussed on such issues.

That would be quite a compelling argument if it didn't fly in the face of all the available evidence.

In the past few governments, we've had

- Thatcher's Conservative: deeply ideological
- Major's Conservative: more pragmatic, I think
- Blair's Labour: total disregard for ideology, the epitome of pragmatism and government by market principles
- Brown's Labour: not really sure what that was supposed to be, but it didn't work very well
- Tory (Coalition): deeply ideological, with some excesses tamed
- Cameron's Conservative: as above, without any taming influence
- May's Conservative: I suspect this'll be a bit like Gordon Brown, what with the timing
2
The New NickB - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

> Under the Conservatives the United Kingdom has had two female prime ministers. Labour have not even had a female party leader.

Not strictly true, Labour have had the same number of female leaders as the Conservatives. Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Harriet Harman in 2015.
MG - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:
Are the libdems the only party which hasnt had a female.leader? Plaid??
Post edited at 07:39
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> Not strictly true, Labour have had the same number of female leaders as the Conservatives. Margaret beckett in 1994 and Harriet Harman in 2015

But if went on holiday and cancelled your papers for a fortnight you probably missed them.
2
winhill - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> - Tory (Coalition): deeply ideological, with some excesses tamed

> - Cameron's Conservative: as above, without any taming influence

Wut?

I don't think you've got to grips with the word ideological or it's meaning in a British political context.
2
BnB - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

Neither of them elected. Both caretakers.
ads.ukclimbing.com
The New NickB - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to BnB:

> Neither of them elected. Both caretakers.

They were Labour Leaders though.
ruffydd - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Are the libdems the only party which hasnt had a female.leader? Plaid??

Shirley Williams was the Lib Dem Leader of the House of Lords.
Plaid Cymru's current leader is Leanne Wood.

MG - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to ruffydd:

> Shirley Williams was the Lib Dem Leader of the House of Lords.

Don't think that counts!

> Plaid Cymru's current leader is Leanne Wood.

Ah yes.

krikoman - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

Can we have Mhairi Black?
2
biped - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> Can we have Mhairi Black?

No, but you can move up here to be closer to her.
2
Jon Stewart - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to winhill:

> I don't think you've got to grips with the word ideological or it's meaning in a British political context.

It's an interesting question, because on the one hand David Cameron himself was totally vacuous and just said and did any old thing that would position him in power - misjudged in the case of the EU referendum of course. But on the other, the policy programme of his government was not pragmatic at all and was hellbent on shrinking the state (Big Society; welfare reform; NHS Reform; deficit reduction aiming for tax cuts) without any regard to the practical consequences of doing so for people's lives.
1
Andy Morley - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> That would be quite a compelling argument if it didn't fly in the face of all the available evidence.

The trouble is, all the 'evidence' you quote is in fact opinion and interpretation.
Jon Stewart - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Well at least it makes reference to some actual things, and you can decide whether you either agree or disagree with my analysis. Your statement was just thin air.
Andy Morley - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Well at least it makes reference to some actual things, and you can decide whether you either agree or disagree with my analysis. Your statement was just thin air.

I prefer thin air to hot air.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.