Shame she feels the need to play this card. The reality is that neither she nor the other women standing, let alone the hopeless RLB, are as electable as Starmer. Yvette Cooper might have been a different matter, but she is not standing. Nice as Jess seems, she has little or no experience of anything outside politics or in it. She does not advance equality one bit by this kind of nonsense.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
Equally should the best person be given the job or the best person wearing this month's in colour?
If you believe in equality of opportunity, and you believe that women are as good as men, then you have to explain why the Labour Party has never elected a woman to the top job?
This is exactly the argument that Labour make about e.g., chairs of FTSE 100 companies.
Statistically, if you never elect a female leader, and a man is always "the best person for the job", then your organisation has a serious problem with unconscious bias.
Shame she feels the need to play this card. The reality is that neither she nor the other women standing, let alone the hopeless RLB, are as electable as Starmer. Yvette Cooper might have been a different matter, but she is not standing. Nice as Jess seems, she has little or no experience of anything outside politics or in it. She does not advance equality one bit by this kind of nonsense.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
Equally should the best person be given the job or the best person wearing this month's in colour?
Shame she feels the need to play this card. The reality is that neither she nor the other women standing, let alone the hopeless RLB, are as electable as Starmer. Yvette Cooper might have been a different matter, but she is not standing. Nice as Jess seems, she has little or no experience of anything outside politics or in it. She does not advance equality one bit by this kind of nonsense.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
Equally should the best person be given the job or the best person wearing this month's in colour?
If you believe in equality of opportunity, and you believe that women are as good as men, then you have to explain why the Labour Party has never elected a woman to the top job?
This is exactly the argument that Labour make about e.g., chairs of FTSE 100 companies.
Statistically, if you never elect a female leader, and a man is always "the best person for the job", then your organisation has a serious problem with unconscious bias.
Nobody out there knows 10 FTSE 100 bosses let alone chairs. One is not asking the public to accept them as authority figures. That said, it should have been Cooper in 2015.
Harry would make a wonderful spearhead for an anti-bullying charity, given the horrific treatment he and his family have had to endure from the media and the monarchical machine.
I wish him well in a life free, at least, from the shackles of Big Royalty.
He wants his cake and to eat it too! The Queen rightly said no.
My feeling is Sanders or Buttigieg will win Iowa. Because the gap between the main 4 candidates is smaller than the % of people opting for Klobuchar and Yang and Steyer, but I can't set Biden getting a lot of 2nd preferences (you have to reach 15% at a district level to win delegates, and can move to a different candidate). If you want Biden you're probably voting for him first (or another major candidate).
I'd have thought Biden and Buttigieg were quite transfer-friendly for people who've opted for an obscure long shot. I'm a Buttigieg-sceptic (and a Klobouchar sceptic for similar reasons) - I don't think he'll win Iowa because he's short of must-have key issues, and if he does I don't think it'll take him very far. But I agree with rcs's analysis that Sanders has to knock out Warren early on, while moderates continue to scrap it out.
Shame she feels the need to play this card. The reality is that neither she nor the other women standing, let alone the hopeless RLB, are as electable as Starmer. Yvette Cooper might have been a different matter, but she is not standing. Nice as Jess seems, she has little or no experience of anything outside politics or in it. She does not advance equality one bit by this kind of nonsense.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
"Positive discrimination" or "affirmative action" in the workplace is illegal in this country and quite rightly so. Choosing women, or people from disadvantaged groups is absolutely right if those people are able to demonstrate they are at least equal in experience skills or potential. The problem for Labour is that all of the women candidates exhibit degrees of hopelessness. Nandy is the best of them , but she is not PM material, certainly not yet, and no where near as good as Cooper.
As an ex Tory activist I can tell you that those few Tories I am still friends with very much hope it is not Starmer. Those that are extremely partisan hope it will be Lightweight-Bailey, but Jess or Nandy would do. I am sure that will be the view of Conservative Central Office.
"She is not PM material" -- how do you know? It depends on your preconception of what a PM is.
I think you are wrong by the way. After all, it is very unpredictable. Keir is the safest -- but dullest -- choice. Will the next election be times for the Dull?
I think Lisa or Jess or RLB could be very dangerous for the Tories depending on the circumstances in which the election is fought.
Who, after all, thought a year ago that a blonde, philandering, buffoon would be PM material?
Only HYUFD on pb.com was correctly predicting that Boris would be next Tory leader and end up with a humungous majority.
Shame she feels the need to play this card. The reality is that neither she nor the other women standing, let alone the hopeless RLB, are as electable as Starmer. Yvette Cooper might have been a different matter, but she is not standing. Nice as Jess seems, she has little or no experience of anything outside politics or in it. She does not advance equality one bit by this kind of nonsense.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
Equally should the best person be given the job or the best person wearing this month's in colour?
If you believe in equality of opportunity, and you believe that women are as good as men, then you have to explain why the Labour Party has never elected a woman to the top job?
This is exactly the argument that Labour make about e.g., chairs of FTSE 100 companies.
Statistically, if you never elect a female leader, and a man is always "the best person for the job", then your organisation has a serious problem with unconscious bias.
Nobody out there knows 10 FTSE 100 bosses let alone chairs. One is not asking the public to accept them as authority figures. That said, it should have been Cooper in 2015.
No, actually it should have been Corbyn, as he ran the best campaign, and at least had things to say, unlike the others which were non-entities and were basically the same as EdM.
I don't think the Labour Party would take a view on your scenario at all, let alone go ballistic. There would be some comments by
I think Jess is correct on this.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
I don't think the Labour Party would comment on your scenario at all, let alone go ballistic. A few MPs would probably comment or write blogs about it, and that would be it. Here, we're looking at who should potentially govern the country. It's reasonable to try to choose the best person, not any particular gender, though I agree, other things being equal, that it'd be nice to break the pattern of male leaders.
In any case I don't think we are going to see all the candidates on the ballot paper. Starmer, RLB and Nandy, and that's probably it.
I think many Labour MPs would comment harshly if a very prominent job came up (which had never been occupied by a woman before) and there was a shortlist of 4 women and 1 man (or even 2 woman and 1 man) --- and the man got the job.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
I should except Oxford University, as they have a female Vice Chancellor.
----
Again, people say Keir looks like a leader or looks electable.
But, why do RLB or Lisa or Jess or Emily not look like leaders or not look electable?
They do differ in a fundamental way from all previous Labour leaders.
It seems 100 per cent pure unconscious bias to me.
They are clearly not up to the job in the same way he is. A neutral observer from outer space would mark him way out in front on what's needed to do the job. A deeper question might need to be asked. Why has an active positive discrimination process produced such woefully incapable candidates? has it crowded out real talent across the board?
Nobody out there knows 10 FTSE 100 bosses let alone chairs. One is not asking the public to accept them as authority figures. That said, it should have been Cooper in 2015.
What striking & revealing phraseology !!
"One is not asking the public to accept them as authority figures"
Unpack that a little, so we can see exactly what you mean.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
I should except Oxford University, as they have a female Vice Chancellor.
----
Again, people say Keir looks like a leader or looks electable.
But, why do RLB or Lisa or Jess or Emily not look like leaders or not look electable?
They do differ in a fundamental way from all previous Labour leaders.
It seems 100 per cent pure unconscious bias to me.
They are clearly not up to the job in the same way he is. A neutral observer from outer space would mark him way out in front on what's needed to do the job. A deeper question might need to be asked. Why has an active positive discrimination process produced such woefully incapable candidates? has it crowded out real talent across the board?
Mr YBard, Boris Johnson is not PM material. He was just considered to be more so than a terrorist supporting Marxist. Bozo isn't some amazing politician, he has some strengths, but he simply had an easy opponent. Labour might choose to make it easy for him next time, or if they have ANY sense, they will not.
As for what is or is not PM material. It is exactly what makes a leader. I COULD see Starmer leading a major company, or international organisation like the IMF, as I could also see Yvette Cooper doing the same. I could imagine Nandy being a middle manager at my local District Council, where I am sure she would be great.
He has the charisma of cold porridge, odd hair, and content-free speech which he makes up for by over-emphasising the wrong words.
Lisa Nandy and Emily Thornberry are the only two who seem to have a bit of smarts *and* a bit of fight.
Jess Philips is just an attention-seeker, and RLB is the “no more Labour Party” option.
There once was a Labour leader who was said to have little charisma. He beat Winston Churchill in a GE and went on to set up the NHS.
Besides, Kier Starmer is charismatic enough. After a few years of the clown in charge, a sensible person will look very attractive to the floating voter.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
I should except Oxford University, as they have a female Vice Chancellor.
----
Again, people say Keir looks like a leader or looks electable.
But, why do RLB or Lisa or Jess or Emily not look like leaders or not look electable?
They do differ in a fundamental way from all previous Labour leaders.
It seems 100 per cent pure unconscious bias to me.
They are clearly not up to the job in the same way he is. A neutral observer from outer space would mark him way out in front on what's needed to do the job. A deeper question might need to be asked. Why has an active positive discrimination process produced such woefully incapable candidates? has it crowded out real talent across the board?
Suddenly it makes sense why Labour can't pick good leaders. They are not picking from the best.
Perhaps there are simply no good choices available at all?
They'll end up picking RLB in the end. I still maintain that the membership will go for the most left wing candidate. Doubtless there is much disappointment that no Stalinists or Maoists have made the shortlist but, absent a truly ideologically sound option, they'll reluctantly opt for the nearest thing to one.
My feeling is Sanders or Buttigieg will win Iowa. Because the gap between the main 4 candidates is smaller than the % of people opting for Klobuchar and Yang and Steyer, but I can't set Biden getting a lot of 2nd preferences (you have to reach 15% at a district level to win delegates, and can move to a different candidate). If you want Biden you're probably voting for him first (or another major candidate).
I'd have thought Biden and Buttigieg were quite transfer-friendly for people who've opted for an obscure long shot. I'm a Buttigieg-sceptic (and a Klobouchar sceptic for similar reasons) - I don't think he'll win Iowa because he's short of must-have key issues, and if he does I don't think it'll take him very far. But I agree with rcs's analysis that Sanders has to knock out Warren early on, while moderates continue to scrap it out.
Looking at the latest set of Monmouth polls, they ask two questions, one forces a choice of the top four. Biden still wins but only gains 4% to Buttigieg's 8%.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
I should except Oxford University, as they have a female Vice Chancellor.
----
Again, people say Keir looks like a leader or looks electable.
But, why do RLB or Lisa or Jess or Emily not look like leaders or not look electable?
They do differ in a fundamental way from all previous Labour leaders.
It seems 100 per cent pure unconscious bias to me.
They are clearly not up to the job in the same way he is. A neutral observer from outer space would mark him way out in front on what's needed to do the job. A deeper question might need to be asked. Why has an active positive discrimination process produced such woefully incapable candidates? has it crowded out real talent across the board?
Suddenly it makes sense why Labour can't pick good leaders. They are not picking from the best.
My wife forced me to watch the leadership debates over the weekend, none of them stood out based on the expectations of them. Though Thornberry in true middle class girly swat (self referred as such) style had done huge amounts of prep and had a bit of extra tuition. She had very good pre-prepared statements for a number of things.
Problem with Starmer, is he is at his peak, he aint going to get any better than what he currently is. Some others have room to grow. From those hustings Thornberry had the mettle. Phillips was embarrassing, Long Bailey knew how to talk to her base, but seemed to lack a wider message. Nandy was just second tier.
None of the female candidates with the exception of Thornberry had the drive, guts and smarts of someone like Anna Soubry (PBUH). Shame she was finally driven mad by Brexit.
Mr YBard, Boris Johnson is not PM material. He was just considered to be more so than a terrorist supporting Marxist. Bozo isn't some amazing politician, he has some strengths, but he simply had an easy opponent. Labour might choose to make it easy for him next time, or if they have ANY sense, they will not.
As for what is or is not PM material. It is exactly what makes a leader. I COULD see Starmer leading a major company, or international organisation like the IMF, as I could also see Yvette Cooper doing the same. I could imagine Nandy being a middle manager at my local District Council, where I am sure she would be great.
Child Exclusion Officer... There, im being kind upgrading her to a county council role.
Comments
This is exactly the argument that Labour make about e.g., chairs of FTSE 100 companies.
Statistically, if you never elect a female leader, and a man is always "the best person for the job", then your organisation has a serious problem with unconscious bias.
I think you are wrong by the way. After all, it is very unpredictable. Keir is the safest -- but dullest -- choice. Will the next election be times for the Dull?
I think Lisa or Jess or RLB could be very dangerous for the Tories depending on the circumstances in which the election is fought.
Who, after all, thought a year ago that a blonde, philandering, buffoon would be PM material?
Only HYUFD on pb.com was correctly predicting that Boris would be next Tory leader and end up with a humungous majority.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/27/ftse-350-firms-falling-short-of-female-board-member-targets
I think many Labour MPs would comment harshly if a very prominent job came up (which had never been occupied by a woman before) and there was a shortlist of 4 women and 1 man (or even 2 woman and 1 man) --- and the man got the job.
And the Labour MPs would be right to criticise.
Sorry, but it is unacceptable.
Phillps = AWS
Long Bailey = AWS
Nandy = AWS
Thornberry = AWS
"One is not asking the public to accept them as authority figures"
Unpack that a little, so we can see exactly what you mean.
He has the charisma of cold porridge, odd hair, and content-free speech which he makes up for by over-emphasising the wrong words.
Lisa Nandy and Emily Thornberry are the only two who seem to have a bit of smarts *and* a bit of fight.
Jess Philips is just an attention-seeker, and RLB is the “no more Labour Party” option.
As for what is or is not PM material. It is exactly what makes a leader. I COULD see Starmer leading a major company, or international organisation like the IMF, as I could also see Yvette Cooper doing the same. I could imagine Nandy being a middle manager at my local District Council, where I am sure she would be great.
Besides, Kier Starmer is charismatic enough. After a few years of the clown in charge, a sensible person will look very attractive to the floating voter.
They'll end up picking RLB in the end. I still maintain that the membership will go for the most left wing candidate. Doubtless there is much disappointment that no Stalinists or Maoists have made the shortlist but, absent a truly ideologically sound option, they'll reluctantly opt for the nearest thing to one.
He looks like this man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicolae_Ceaușescu.jpg
A Labour Party supporter on here actually said "the public" will not accept women "as authority figures".
Rarely has Labour's authoritarianism been so brutally exposed.
Labour won't ever elect a woman as leader. Men will always be "the best person for the job" (in Nick Palmer's pompous, not really regretful phrase).
Problem with Starmer, is he is at his peak, he aint going to get any better than what he currently is. Some others have room to grow. From those hustings Thornberry had the mettle. Phillips was embarrassing, Long Bailey knew how to talk to her base, but seemed to lack a wider message. Nandy was just second tier.
None of the female candidates with the exception of Thornberry had the drive, guts and smarts of someone like Anna Soubry (PBUH). Shame she was finally driven mad by Brexit.
It’s K-E-I-R.
F-F-S.
Women can't be "authority figures" in the political arena (© EPG), but they can hen-peck their husbands into the front-room to watch TV...
It will be interesting to see the consequences of that.
One waiting for the boot.