Why has a woman never led the Labour Party?

So the 22 committee is no different to the NEC? Yet the members of the 22 committee are MP’s voted in by the voter ,not so the NEC.

Thornberry may claim to have had no money as a child-many divorcees don't, that doesn't mean there is no family money.
I fully agree that she has built a succesful career for herself and didn't ask her husband to fund her legal training (unlike MT)
What makes Conservative MPs different to others is that in the Conservative party money speaks with a very loud voice (and actually it's not just female MPs)
I suspect that the reason there has not been a female leader of the Labour party is because they have strong principles, do not toe the party line and are not machiavellian enough.
Oh and that some seem to die too early.

And have only stood for the leadership in the last few years , trying to recall if a woman stood for leader before Yvette , can’t think of one. Am sure there wasn’t one.

trisher

That's interesting. So Emily Thornberry does have a wealthy family according to you. Certainly not the impression she likes to give the public I wonder why.

You live and learn .

As far your saying :-

" I suspect that the reason there has not been a female leader of the Labour party is because they have strong principles, do not toe the party line and are not machiavellian enough.
Oh and that some seem to die too early."

Are you now implying to become a Leader of the Labour Party you have to be 'unprincipled' , 'toe the party line' and 'Machiavellian'?

Is there now in your opinion a difference not only between Conservative /Labour female MP's but also between male/female Labour Party MP's.?

What makes Conservative MPs different to others is that in the Conservative party money speaks with a very loud voice

A very out-dated and stereotypical response trisher.

Most ordinary people vote Conservative because they cannot relate to other parties, especially Labour ; they have experienced the loony left, mistrust far left anarchists and would rather feel part of a movement that includes them and every other section of society, not just 'the poor' - which has become Labour's war cry. The 'poor' are the fodder for Labour's campaigns yet the poor will continue to exist. Labour had thirteen years in Government and still people slept on the streets and even then hospitals were stretched to their limits. It's a clever ploy to suggest that only Labour has a conscience and compassion. Look at the propaganda issued by Labour.

At street level, Conservatives tend to be very ordinary working people without riches to their name, or a privileged background. But labour supporters have a duty to propagate the myth that all live in higher echelons, and have money and a vested interest in big business.

It is a myth. The days of toffs versus ordinary people has long gone, and many ordinary people do not relate to Labour's Marxism.

However, watch how Labour hard left supporters will tell you Tories are rich and uncaring.

What's the expression - 'get with the times' ?

Look at those standing for election to local government, which is where many MPs begin their careers. I do not belong to any political party, preferring to see what each offers and I'd rather vote for a poor Conservative than a ranting hard-left anarchist.

In the middle there are people who want to think they matter too.

So labour leaders, all male, toe the party line, do not have principles and are Machiavellian ? Not true trisher , so not true .

Such a pity a thread started with a good question has sunk into all tories are wealthy, all labour are caring, compassionate , not wealthy . A Tory bashing thread .

Hell,bells, Thornberry and Abbott sent their children to private schools and vote against grammer schools, that’s having principals.

There are faults in all parties, unprincipled in all parties, caring and compassionate in all parties .

Well said Annie.

I imagine there will be many male Labour MPs who cheer on women who are outspoken, strong and not likely to be manipulated. Don't most modern men raise their daughters to know their own minds?

Trisher has unfortunately painted a picture of reactionary male Labour MPs who fear strong women and has used that to suggest these men hold women back, but Conservative women don't face the same challenges or misogyny because they are (without doubt, in her opinion) 'rich'.

?????

The politics of spite? Of envy? Of blasting anyone with money?

I think there have been a good few Labour women such as Tessa, Mo Mowlam etc who would have made very good leaders. I think sometimes they are held back because of family responsibility but also I think some of it is timing, meaning who else are they up against for the role. For example, I don't think there were any other real contenders when May was elected leader. Yvette Cooper had a chance recently but I don't think she had a very strong leadership campaign however I think she'd have got more votes if Andy Burnham hadn't stood at the same time

My view is that Yvette Cooper's leadership campaign at the Hustings was a strong one. Andy Burnham, who I like and who was a good local MP was imo far to macho during the campaign. He strutted the stage talking about "when I'm your Leader" as though the other 3 candidates didn't matter. I heard lots of asides at meetings/hustings from people who suggested Yvette couldn't be leader because she's married to Ed Balls.
There was talk throughout that Leadership campaign suggesting that either Yvette or Andy stood back to allow the other to win.
By the way - where's the evidence that MT 'asked" Dennis to pay for her legal training? I'd always believed that in marriage everything was jointly owned.

Definately Yvette being married to Ed and him losing his seat affected her chances. Andy was too timid in his first attempt so probably tried to make up for it the second time.

I still cringe that I changed my decision on voting near the time and voted for the worse leader ever. Be careful what you wish for certaintly applies to me, ouch.

How I wish Evette was leader, she has all the qualities , strong, compassionate, well educated, experienced, and she has class. No, not working,middle or upper ?, a dignity

I'd have to agree that I think being married to Ed Balls damaged Yvette's chances, as he's not very popular. I was working on Tom Watson's deputy campaign at the time and it was interesting that this was probably one of the most regular comments that people made about any of the leadership and deputy contenders

My claim that labour sells power to unions was dismissed as unsubstantiated rubbish by the forums union expert who then claimed the 22 committee would take money , no proof supplied only something about JRM and the Russians .

If labour take money from unions then no difference to other parties taking money from wealthy diners, except wealthy donors do not openly back candidates for positions, unions do.

I didn't mention money Annie the '22 committee deals in power .
As to all these conclusions drawn by people about what I actually said some need a lesson in logic and in drawing conclusions. So just because I think the most important female labour MPs have principles, do not toe the line and are not machaevellian you cannot draw the conclusion that therefore every other leader doesn't, does or is. It's false logic. Although I can think of leaders of both parties that have had one or more of those characteristics.
As for the long diatribe about Conservative voters Day6 what has that to do with rich MPs? Around 45% of Conservative MPs went to private schools, so some must have money.

Unions Annie are controlled by and act in the interests of their members, ordinary working people. Wealthy individuals and companies donating are acting out of self interest and profit making. Now if you can't see that those are totally different I do wonder why you were ever a Labour party member.

trisher you say that women have not been chosen because they have ‘strong principles, do not toe the Party line and are not Machiavellian enough’
So, given that those attributes fit Corbyn like a glove, it appears that a man can be chosen, but not a woman.
Actually, it makes a lot more sense to say that the LP have a sexism problem.

trisher, unless you too consider yourself the union expert you would know I was not referring to you,

As to why I was ever a party member , you will have to wonder. Unions do not always act in the interests of their members, you can tell yourself this is so, but it is not. I hold a balanced view you do not.

No it doesn't lemongrove really some people do draw weird and unjustified conclusions.

I also think it is something to do with timing. Tony Blair was leader for so long, there was no need for a leadership election, and then Gordon Brown took over.

I don't think Clare Short would have stood a chance because she took a stand against Page 3. There are still even today (!) men and women(!) dismissing female nudity in the workplace as "a bit of fun" it was much worse in those days.

As for unions, I think they do what is best for the majority of their members, even if sometimes some of their members feel unfairly treated, the union looks at the bigger picture.

Companies lobbying govt are doing their best for their shareholders.
Both groups look at things from their particular angle, which is not always in the interests of the country as a whole.

I agree about the timing and Clare Short. But the unions do their best for the majority of their members ? Like keeping Lord Robens as head of the NCB even though the enquiry into the deaths of 128 people found him at fault. And the many miners who lost their homes in the miners strike whilst Scargill aquired a £600,000 house . And what about The Grunswick Dispute? Then bringing down a labour government more than once .

This dream of ‘workers of the world unite’ has long gone

Anniebach, in response to your posting today (15/05/18 @ 14:46) in which you stated I offered no evidence of the Conservative party nineteen twenty two Committee which includes Jacob Rees-Mogg being driven by personal monetary gain in many matters. In that, below is a section of a report published in RT in regard to the hypocrisy of JMB.

Report starts here:-
Jacob Rees-Mogg has been accused of hypocrisy after details of Russian profits from his fund-management firm were revealed. The Tory MP had said that Russia should be “hit financially” over the Skripal poisoning.

Rees-Mogg is a co-founder, director and shareholder of Somerset Capital Management (SCM) – an investment management firm which specializes in emerging markets. SCM confirmed it runs a fund with a stake worth up to £60 million ($84 million) in Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank. The MP profits from the bank – through his position as a shareholder – that has been a target of EU sanctions since 2014.

The news sparked outrage on social media, with users racing to blast the Conservative as“hypocritical”and"arguably the stupidest man in parliament.”

Report ends.

The full report can be viewed by following this link:-https://www.rt.com/uk/421905-jacob-rees-mogg-russia/
Cut and paste if direct link does not connect.

Further reading on the matter can be viewed in the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Daily Mirror and much other online news media.

So anniebach, once more you have demonstrated your total lack of knowledge in regard to a subject you post and comment on in this forum. The foregoing would pair easily with your demonstrated lack of knowledge on the structures of the Labour movement and even the palimenterary Labour party, the party you "claim" to have been a member of for fifty years.

Work has taken me to London for a few days, but will post again on this when time allows.

Just what I need , an expert on all thing connected to unions.

Why did unions keep Lord Robens in his position regardless of the findings of the enquiry into the Aberfan disaster and why did they try to stop the tips being removed and then insist the villagers pay part of the costs from the memorial fund money?

It's nothing to do with sexism, there just has not been an inspirational female firebrand, Sturgeon inspired the SNP for a while, Thatcher the Tories for far too long. Beloved Theresa doesn't count because nobody else wanted the job.

Because the Labour Party "Members" elect the leader any successful woman has got to be a firebrand well to the Left of the party and a more inspirational speaker than Corbyn.

Wether that makes them unelectable, we will see.

Since her recent death, Tessa Jowell has been showered with praise. She was a successful Labour Party politician, and everyone talks about how nice she was. Did she never become party leader, or even aspire to be leader, because she has too nice?

Labour Party members and the unions vote for the leader, if it had just been party members David Milliband would have been leader, the union vote swung it to Ed Milliband