Briefing against women ministers in Westminster

You then reported me for some reason.

Yes I know, we have all read the thread. I know what happened.
I could write a post about beliefs that you don't hold, ascribe them to you and then call them extreme, reactionary, etc. I am not sure what purpose it would serve but it seems to be a new trend on here.

You are well able to post and represent your views..

We are allowed to have different beliefs and each allowed to post our views.

Wyllow3

Sigh.

As regards trans women my POV is that everyone is different, with different POV,

and how many times have we said - as regards racism for example that not all Muslims or Jewish people or whomever are "the same" is tarred with the same brush.

So one takes people as they come:

but as regards the backward steps on womens' progress forwards, there are really significant issues we cannot afford to ignore.

I agree and also aim to take people as they come Willow3.

Wyllow3

None. We are not that threatened, imo, simply put, by a tiny minority of people and now have adequate boundaries in place.

Like I said, all of us are in need of being aware of attacks on Womens rights in the broadest sense. going on and on about a tiny group imo help no one.

So I shall be going go to my Womens Interfaith group tomorrow afternoon to actually build bridges between the variety of cultures and enjoy those experiences not carp.

Enjoy your Women's Interfaith group today- building bridges instead of division makes the world a happier place and a better place to live 😊

Indeed. We can all read the thread and post our views.

Let's not forget what Burnham actually said at the meeting:

“Culture really does matter and we need to change that culture.

“I want to make it clear that if anyone in my team was found to have done that [negative briefing] they would be out of the door. Their feet wouldn’t touch the floor.

“And I want to put on record that I never have and never will describe myself as the first female Labour PM.”

Labour has never elected a female leader and Labour MPs were irritated at the description by a senior Labour figure quoted in the Spectator, who said Burnham could be the “first woman prime minister” because he cared about an “unashamedly female agenda” including health, education and family finances, rather than “budgets and bombs”.

So he actually said if anyone in his team was found to be negatively briefing against another, of whatever sex he would not tolerate that.

I don't have a problem with what he said and neither can I see there is a problem in what he actually said. Plus he took a stand against The Spectator article description head on- good on him I say.

It is really quite weird that there is that level of sexism from within his own party. It is like something from the victorian age.

Burnham, the very new MP for Makerfield, may say anything he pleases and frequently does so. Words are cheap.

We are more concerned about what action actually follows.

If AB becomes PM- all eyes. will be on his actions for the next 3 years as it is for all PMs. The electorate will make their judgements and vote accordingly at the next GE.

Twas ever thus.

I think that sexism about the first female leader is actually quite a common theme. You see it in discussions around the female tory leaders, when people claim they aren't really female leaders because they 'behave like men'. It is all linked to the weird stereotypes people have about the two sexes.

Count to date:

Conservative Party - 4- Thatcher, May, Truss ( only lasted several weeks) and Badenoch.

Labour-0
Lib Dems-1
SNP -1
Reform UK- 0

It very much depends on each party's leader selection process and who, male or female is stadingtso be selected/voted in as the party leader the time. For most of the parties the person who secures the most votes from that party's electorate becomes leader, whether male or female.

For example AB is male and no other contenders, thus far, male or female have come forward for selection. So it looks likely we will have a male PM.

Reform UK does appear to have a democratic selection process for its leader I understand.

A party is more than just the leader- the cabinets also very important. It's good to have a PM that has a good. mix. of male and female ministers and cabinet.

Reform party does not. have a democratic system

Labour only ever elect white males as leader, The first step outside this will more likely be a male who is black or brown rather than a female. You have to give it to the Conservatives they’ve had all variations despite their other faults.

Rosie51

Labour only ever elect white males as leader, The first step outside this will more likely be a male who is black or brown rather than a female. You have to give it to the Conservatives they’ve had all variations despite their other faults.

I think that the tory record of ‘diversity’ in their leadership has been more a result of luck than of judgement.

I’d also suggest that most have been poor leaders among a plethora of poor leaders. 🤔

Thatcher was dreadful.

I wanted Yvette Cooper when she stood. Got Corbyn.Way the cookie crumbles, I don't experience that there is anything in the LP stopping it as such.

Here is Cooper in 2015. Missed opportunity.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33880848

MaizieD

Rosie51

Labour only ever elect white males as leader, The first step outside this will more likely be a male who is black or brown rather than a female. You have to give it to the Conservatives they’ve had all variations despite their other faults.

I think that the tory record of ‘diversity’ in their leadership has been more a result of luck than of judgement.

I’d also suggest that most have been poor leaders among a plethora of poor leaders. 🤔

Oh come on, give credit it where it’s due they actually elected women as well as black and brown people, something that appears to be beyond Labour. Why does that constitute luck rather than judgement. I may not vote Conservative but I do credit them with being able to decide who to vote for. Labour in its entire history can’t see beyond white male.

I don't think it was luck. It was that they see 'Tory' rather than 'female' 'black' 'gay'.
The fact that Thatcher was dreadful is irrelevant surely if your aim is to have a woman leader, there will be dreadful ones and good ones, same as men.
To give labour credit if you like the identity politics thing they did have a Jewish leader of the party.

I don't think it was luck. It was that they see 'Tory' rather than 'female' 'black' 'gay'.

I think they were hoping for another Thatcher when it came to female leaders. I also think they think they've found one in Badenoch...

Sunak, coming after Truss's budget disaster (when he had previously been beaten by her) I think got it by virtue of being a 'businessman' and a previous apparently successful Chancellor. I think his colour worked against him when he was up against Truss.

TBH, I don't think much logic applies to the choice of party leaders, it seems to me to be a bit of a beauty contest. Perhaps Labour members tend to be a bit misogynistic with their choices, though the unions seem happy to choose women leaders and there are female Labour Metro Mayors (different electorates, though)

Anyway, we're stuck with another white male Labour leader as no women seem inclined to challenge him.

Wyllow3

Thatcher was dreadful.

I wanted Yvette Cooper when she stood. Got Corbyn.Way the cookie crumbles, I don't experience that there is anything in the LP stopping it as such.

Here is Cooper in 2015. Missed opportunity.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33880848

Thatcher was a strong leader with non u-turning clarity, whether one agrees with her politics or not.

I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that Thatcher was a strong leader.

It's just a shame that her 'strong leadership' set the UK on the path to decline, as many other countries which also embraced her (and the USA's) economic policies are now finding...

Rosie51

MaizieD

Rosie51

Labour only ever elect white males as leader, The first step outside this will more likely be a male who is black or brown rather than a female. You have to give it to the Conservatives they’ve had all variations despite their other faults.

I think that the tory record of ‘diversity’ in their leadership has been more a result of luck than of judgement.

I’d also suggest that most have been poor leaders among a plethora of poor leaders. 🤔

Oh come on, give credit it where it’s due they actually elected women as well as black and brown people, something that appears to be beyond Labour. Why does that constitute luck rather than judgement. I may not vote Conservative but I do credit them with being able to decide who to vote for. Labour in its entire history can’t see beyond white male.

With 11 women, Starmer appointed a cabinet with the highest number of female ministers in political history - credit where its due 👏

As posted earlier, it entirely depends on how many women step forward to be selected in the first place. Historically for both Conservative and Labour Party not many women have stepped forward for selection- that's the rub.

Three women have officially stood as candidates in final Labour Party leadership elections: Margaret Beckett (1992), Rebecca Long-Bailey (2020), and Lisa Nandy (2020). Additionally, Harriet Harman served twice as acting leader though never in an elected, permanent capacity.

1992 Deputy leadership Contest Margaret Beckett stood for the deputy leadership and became the first woman to lead the party in a temporary capacity following the death of John Smith in 1994, though she did not contest the substantive leader election that followed
2020 Contest Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy were both on the final ballot alongside current Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Keith Starmer won the ballot.
2026 Contest Starmer has resigned and (thus far) only Andy Burnham has stepped forward as a contender.

Conservative Party- historically, Thatcher was leader of Conservative party in 1975. After her resignation no women stood in any Conservative Party leader elections until 2016

2016 Contest Teresa May, Andrea Leasom stood against Gove and May won the vote
* 2019 contest* - all male, no women stood and Boris won the vote
* 2022 Contest* Truss, Mordaunt and Badenoch stood against Sunak and Truss won the vote but only lasted weeks before she resigned. Sunak became PM without a GE. He resigned May 2024 and called for a GE which Starmer won for Labour Party
2024 Contest Badenoch won the leadership vote against Robert Jenrick

thus it can be easily seen its more the case that so very few women step forward for party leadership roles and so infrequently Until this changes the more pertinent issue meanwhile is how many females a PM selects for their cabinet in senior leadership roles. Labour wins hands down in that ongoing competition

Thus there is little, in fact no judgement is "selecting" contenders for leadership roles- it is self selecting.

eazybee

Is there any evidence other than from Burnham?

It has been obvious during his brief tenure as PM that Starmer has a problem with women, but that is a different issue.

Really? Or are you harping back yet again to the gender, sex and trans issues? Yawn!

LemonJam

Thus there is little, in fact no judgement is "selecting" contenders for leadership roles- it is self selecting.

👏👏👏👏👏

We need to encourage our young female politicians to put themselves forward.