They're doing so because it's a basic moral failing of the party that a female candidate for the leadership has never once finished above a male candidate for the leadership, let alone won. After a while, that stops being a coincidence and starts becoming a symbol of a party looking for excuses to not elect women.

 

This goes back to the point I made in our arguments about the EU. The "moderates" still try to claim purity and morality should trump pragmatism on the issues THEY personally care about, while at the same time preaching how "getting into power" is the only thing that matters when it's issues they don't personally care about. It's the height of hypocrisy.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Labour not fighting cuts to incomes of the poorest people in the country, and generally not fighting against an economic system that entrenches inequality, is a much bigger "moral failing" than not giving an already privileged and middle-class woman a good position for herself.

Edited September 18, 20168 yr by Danny

The difference being that this isn't at all an issue that makes Labour less electable or contributes to concerns people have about Labour that would stop them voting for the party, so it's not really an accurate analogy. And it's the height of tunnel vision to reduce representation's benefits to just one person.

The difference being that this isn't at all an issue that makes Labour less electable or contributes to concerns people have about Labour that would stop them voting for the party, so it's not really an accurate analogy. And it's the height of tunnel vision to reduce representation's benefits to just one person.

 

How would the average woman benefit simply by Yvette Cooper being Labour leader, with all else being equal? How did the average woman benefit from Thatcher being PM?

 

Atleast Harriet Harman (who after all did manage to win an election with the supposedly "sexist" Labour electorate, even despite Alan Johnson having all the institutional advantages) campaigned for concrete things that affect the woman on the street (childcare, pay gap, etc.). Whether one agrees with her or not, atleast her political ethos was something more substantial and mature (and less self-centred) than "a woman should be in a leadership position" as an argument in itself.

Edited September 18, 20168 yr by Danny

Meanwhile, new UKIP leader Diane James fails the "don't compare yourself to Putin" test -

 

 

So her ideal politician would be a combination of Thatcher, Churchill & Putin. So basically, Trump.

 

Fabulous. I look forward to UKIP pursuing Churchill's dream of a united and safe Europe, Thatcher's support of Europe and Putin's err....

 

So UKIP wants to be Putin basically. Crooks.

 

(Unless she means the insurance dog, oh YESSSS!)

How would the average woman benefit simply by Yvette Cooper being Labour leader, with all else being equal? How did the average woman benefit from Thatcher being PM?

 

Atleast Harriet Harman (who after all did manage to win an election with the supposedly "sexist" Labour electorate, even despite Alan Johnson having all the institutional advantages) campaigned for concrete things that affect the woman on the street (childcare, pay gap, etc.). Whether one agrees with her or not, atleast her political ethos was something more substantial and mature (and less self-centred) than "a woman should be in a leadership position" as an argument in itself.

I'm quite impressed by how you can hijack so many threads with this.

How would the average woman benefit simply by Yvette Cooper being Labour leader, with all else being equal? How did the average woman benefit from Thatcher being PM?

 

Atleast Harriet Harman (who after all did manage to win an election with the supposedly "sexist" Labour electorate, even despite Alan Johnson having all the institutional advantages) campaigned for concrete things that affect the woman on the street (childcare, pay gap, etc.). Whether one agrees with her or not, atleast her political ethos was something more substantial and mature (and less self-centred) than "a woman should be in a leadership position" as an argument in itself.

It's a false comparison as Thatcher actively sought to play down her gender as something that in any way influenced her politics (beyond the occasional riff on how knowing the cost of Flora meant she knew how a budget hit a household etc). I think the average woman would benefit far more from a woman being Labour leader than otherwise as they're likely to be more mindful of avoiding cuts that hit families, childcare etc. As, indeed, Yvette referenced during her leadership campaign.

I'm quite impressed by how you can hijack so many threads with this.

 

 

Sorry, wasn't it you who (implicitly) brought Labour into this thread?:

 

 

We're going to be the last relevant party to have a full-time female leader. Christ.

 

Diane James is set to stand down as leader of UKIP after only 18 days in charge. That must be one of the shortest official premierships of a UK political party with representation ever (unless someone can think of another one?). That means another leadership contest in the offing, Steven Woolf has been seen re-downloading Windows 7 so he doesn't have another computer failure cause his application to be received late.

It has been confirmed that Diane James is stepping down, so it is time to reflect on her achievements as leader. OK, we've done that, so we can turn our attention to which nonentity will replace her.

Diane James is set to stand down as leader of UKIP after only 18 days in charge. That must be one of the shortest official premierships of a UK political party with representation ever (unless someone can think of another one?). That means another leadership contest in the offing, Steven Woolf has been seen re-downloading Windows 7 so he doesn't have another computer failure cause his application to be received late.

 

She's not even the shortest-serving UKIP leader.

 

http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2015/05/suzanne.png

I don't know if it's reeeeeeeally fair to count an acting leader!

Farage is still leader apparently. He says James' election as leader wasn't registered with the Electoral Commission so she wasn't really legally the leader at all! As he said, you couldn't make it up.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuFbVLwWcAAeHQ9.jpg

 

I won't embed it as it's a little brutal. But what the f*** is happening with UKIP.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06...s-condition-af/

 

Edited October 6, 20168 yr by Harve

Ukip the party with no reason to exist now the Tories are adopting their anti European policy and nothing else coherent to stay together on. Goodbye won't miss you.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuFbVLwWcAAeHQ9.jpg

 

I won't embed it as it's a little brutal. But what the f*** is happening with UKIP.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06...s-condition-af/

 

And EVERY SINGLE PAPER has plastered that image on their front page, including The Guardian, who I never expected to stoop to that. I'm pretty livid to see all of them put sales/their agenda over that man's dignity.

 

"That's how easy it is".

Steven Woolf has now resigned from UKIP, and will now sit as an independent MEP ib the EU Parliament until 2019. He would have been a good leader to see the UKIP past its post-Brexit identity crisis, and to lead them in the possibility of taking seats from Labour in the north, but his acrimonious departure will likely leave the party in disarray.

Honestly you couldn't make 2016 up if you tried

Paul Nuttall would be dangerous.

Paul Nuttall would be dangerous.

Ah yes, Farage without the charm.