Briefing against women ministers in Westminster

Yes, go by the talent and skill, not the gender.

If anyone has a problem with the women requesting a change in the boys club culture and not to be anonymously briefed against so be it- we are all entitled to different views.

Yes obviously that is what we think.

Agree it’s disgusting behaviour.
Men never behaved so badly when I was working. Preferred to work with men though, to be honest. Women were bitchy!

Maremia

Yes, go by the talent and skill, not the gender.

Hear, hear 👏👏👏

Let's hope he would disapprove of briefing against ANY minister.

I couldn’t imagine Esther McVey putting up with that.

But also, yes, root out any misogyny.
Establish an even playing field, so that talent is not ignored because of gender.

valdali

In another thread, "quotas" for gender & ethnicity in the workplace were widely deplored.
The article Galaxy kindly linked, says Burnham has been asked to commit to a 50/50 split for ministers and staff. Am I alone in thinking that this is a kind of "quota"?
Personally I think he should look for the most effective and qualified people for each role, & I believe that will include a lot of women, but it should be on merit surely?

Labour were quite open about a minimum quota of women to try to address the imbalance. Lots of complaints at the time, but their argument was that there needed to be a change to the "like me" syndrome that we only saw Cameron lookalikes or Wilson more rugged look and sound.

Certainly, the Tories seemed to try harder with female PMs and now leader of the opposition, but they did not change what went behind - they were happy to have females but only if they acted like male politicians - dictatorial; they could not cope with a collaborative style

It's about time someone did something about the 'boys club' in Parliament. It's just a, shame that, Starmer not only ignored it but allowed it to get worse under his watch.

The news? Google it, there's plenty of info about it.

I agree Dreadwitch. From the outset McSweeney positioned himself to oust Sue Grey. BIG mistake as she was the only one who had insight into working of Civil service and the expertise to help LP prepare for office and hit the ground running coming into office after the GE.

Instead McSweeney had Steamer's ears, got himself into piston and briefed against Sue Gray, made mistakes, embedded the boys club culture, supported Mandelson's appointment and the rest is history for Starmer.

Hollie Ridley, Labour's General Secretary (never heard of her) has announced she will step down after two years in the job, citing personal reasons and saying she wanted to make room for a successor.

HOWEVER, a' Labour Source' told the DT that Ms Ridley had been pushed out by allies of Mr. Burnham briefing against her, and who had warned her that the briefings would get 'nastier and more personal' if she did not go. And so it begins?

Make of that what you will.

eazybee

Hollie Ridley, Labour's General Secretary (never heard of her) has announced she will step down after two years in the job, citing personal reasons and saying she wanted to make room for a successor.

HOWEVER, a' Labour Source' told the DT that Ms Ridley had been pushed out by allies of Mr. Burnham briefing against her, and who had warned her that the briefings would get 'nastier and more personal' if she did not go. And so it begins?

Make of that what you will.

Starmer appointed her as party General Secretary as she was ally of him and McSweeney as he came into role as PM 2 years ago. Usual and normal just as new PM selects their cabinet. A “labour source” no name, sounds like right wing newspaper tittle tattle as it makes no sense.

As you point out she’s resigning of her own volition and also has widely reported she will be supportive of new PM.

AB if new PM need not brief against her or any other potential cabinet ministers etc as he has complete free choice as do all PMs. He will have his own Allira and not Linley to want Starmers and Mcsweeney”s allies as mistakes were made- hence why anonymous source gossip makes no sense.

Crikey predictive text 🥱 AB will want and have his own allies to put in position- and not necessarily want the same people in post Starmer chose. We all know that surely?

Let’s hope new PM chooses wisely and not on previous old boys club culture. Time will tell.

FranP

valdali

In another thread, "quotas" for gender & ethnicity in the workplace were widely deplored.
The article Galaxy kindly linked, says Burnham has been asked to commit to a 50/50 split for ministers and staff. Am I alone in thinking that this is a kind of "quota"?
Personally I think he should look for the most effective and qualified people for each role, & I believe that will include a lot of women, but it should be on merit surely?

Labour were quite open about a minimum quota of women to try to address the imbalance. Lots of complaints at the time, but their argument was that there needed to be a change to the "like me" syndrome that we only saw Cameron lookalikes or Wilson more rugged look and sound.

Certainly, the Tories seemed to try harder with female PMs and now leader of the opposition, but they did not change what went behind - they were happy to have females but only if they acted like male politicians - dictatorial; they could not cope with a collaborative style

I haven't been opposed to quotas in the past, as the "we need more people like us" mindset is quite stubborn to get past.
I just think that through quotas and other means, entrenched cultures have largely been broken up. (young white males from disadvantaged areas seem to have as hard a time as a group as anyone now).
Quotas were a means to an end & not an end in themselves & I disagree with the female MPs calling for them for ministerial positions currently.

Who in the Labour Party is calling for “quotas” in ministerial positions?

Any party that can appoint a transitioned male as Women’s Officer as Labour did is capable of any type of misogyny.

Sueinkent

Any party that can appoint a transitioned male as Women’s Officer as Labour did is capable of any type of misogyny.

Typical.

In 2018, 9 years ago, Lily Madigan was elected as a Constituency Labour Party Women’s Officer in 2017 (not HQ in any way, local). There was great resistance and she lasted only several months.

Policy has long changed on that and s/he was the only one, for goodness sake. It was one of the things that happened under Corbyn.

Sueinkent

Any party that can appoint a transitioned male as Women’s Officer as Labour did is capable of any type of misogyny.

Historically, going back to 2017, Lily Madigan was elected as a women's officer for Labour Students.

However since then the LP ruling body has since updated rules such that when something refers to a woman, including a woman's role, it must be interpreted on the basis of biological sex. Think the Girls Guides, WI and many other organisations have similar updated their rules?

More recently Katie Wells (formerly Jamie Wells) transitioned in 2022 and came out as a transgender Conservative MP for Bridgend in Wales. Abriel Jerram serves for the Lib Dems.

The phrase 'transitioned' refers to anyone transgender, non binary and gender diverse. Maybe you are just transgender, non binary and gender diverse critical for all the political parties.

As for how facts can get twisted, thank you Lemonjam as regards Hollie Ridley.

Right wing press at work again - expect more. Nothing new there.

No we shouldn't have quotas at this senior level just be very aware of any misogyny at work in making choices.

Yes we aren't allowed to mention when the labour party ( and many others) pretended that men were women. We should be quiet about that because it makes them look foolish.

I have to say, I had no idea who Hollie Ridley was, but when I read this dubious account, (always dubious when it is 'an anonymous source') my first thought was, if that had been me I would have dug my heels in and refused to be intimidated out of a job I enjoyed and believed I was doing competently.

Yes of course we should mention it but be accurate as to "When" because if it hadn't been picked up, then us reading the post by Sueinkent could have assumed it was "now" not 8 years or more ago, and as Lemonjam pointed out it was happening in a huge variety or organisations.

Not only do things change, but not to mention it means we also forget the social and political struggles to change it!