This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
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.
Under the Conservatives the United Kingdom has had two female prime ministers. Labour have not even had a female party leader.
Just a thought.
12
24
In reply to FesteringSore:
Perhaps Labour simply haven't had the right woman for the job at the right time?
Perhaps Labour simply haven't had the right woman for the job at the right time?
31
2
In reply to Trevers:
Who knows? Yet Corbyn seems quick to surround himself with Jezza-Belles. Then there were the Blair Babes.
Who knows? Yet Corbyn seems quick to surround himself with Jezza-Belles. Then there were the Blair Babes.
1
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.
>
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.
>
2
6
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
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
10
6
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.
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.
42
17
In reply to Bootrock:
Yeah, I distinctly remember all the conversations with the lefty liberals banging on about how good a prime minister Theresa May would be.
> 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.
27
In reply to Bootrock:
Why would anybody who is aware of news coverage be talking about May being "a good prime minister because she's a mother"?
> 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"?
17
1
In reply to elsewhere:
An idiot?
> 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?
11
In reply to Bootrock:
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.
> ... 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.
20
1
In reply to Bootrock:
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.
> 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.
7
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Yes Dear.
> 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.
8
3
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?
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?
8
4
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!
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!
6
2
In reply to Ripley:
These dislikes are funny, this is factually correct.
> 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
2
9
3
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...
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...
4
5
In reply to Trevers:
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.
> 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.
1
2
In reply to Bootrock:
You're right.
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.
I never said you were 12.
> 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.
1
1
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?
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
1
In reply to Bootrock:
You missed the mumsnet effect then. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02676/Tony_Blair_childre_267652...
Many many pictures of call me Tony and the kids.
You missed the mumsnet effect then. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02676/Tony_Blair_childre_267652...
Many many pictures of call me Tony and the kids.
3
In reply to Andy Morley:
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
> 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
6
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Not strictly true, Labour have had the same number of female leaders as the Conservatives. Margaret Beckett in 1994 and Harriet Harman in 2015.
> 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.
2
In reply to The New NickB:
Are the libdems the only party which hasnt had a female.leader? Plaid??
Are the libdems the only party which hasnt had a female.leader? Plaid??
Post edited at 07:39
In reply to The New NickB:
But if went on holiday and cancelled your papers for a fortnight you probably missed them.
> 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.
4
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Wut?
I don't think you've got to grips with the word ideological or it's meaning in a British political context.
> - 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.
1
2
2
In reply to MG:
Shirley Williams was the Lib Dem Leader of the House of Lords.
Plaid Cymru's current leader is Leanne Wood.
> 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.
In reply to ruffydd:
Don't think that counts!
Ah yes.
> 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.
2
1
1
1
In reply to winhill:
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.
> 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
In reply to Jon Stewart:
The trouble is, all the 'evidence' you quote is in fact opinion and interpretation.
> 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.
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.
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.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I prefer thin air to hot air.
> 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.
Loading Notifications...