The most senior positions in the shadow cabinet have been revealed. And in the top four slots – leader, shadow chancellor, shadow Home Secretary, shadow Foriegn Secretary – it’s all men. I will now explain why this is appalling.
Usually, the excuse for why there aren’t more jobs given to females in politics is down to the meritocracy argument. “We just took the best people for the job, really. Only 22% of MPs are women – what were we supposed to do? Give the job to someone who we didn’t think was ready all in the name of positive gender discrimination?” They usually have at least half a point when this excuse is trotted out – although that’s only because an inherent, almost unconscious sexism is what makes this the case in the first place. The men get the breaks at the start, which means they are more likely to get promoted (maternity leave will never disrupt their progress either), so that when it comes to the end of the chain and the really big jobs are up for grabs it is actually much more likely that men have the superior experience needed.
But in this case, it’s so obviously not true. I can think of several women who are willing to serve in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet who would makes a better shadow chancellor than John McDonnell. Off the top of my head, Diane Abbott would be a lot better – she at least has frontbench experience.
But all right, let’s give McDonnell to Jeremy because they are mates and all. Besides I think Enoch Powell’s exhumed corpse would make a better shadow chancellor than McDonnell, so we could be here all day on this one. But did he really have to give Burnham the Home Secretary brief? The stock answer on this will be that Corbyn was trying to make peace with different factions within the Labour Party. But do Andy and his people genuinely represent a unique viewpoint? This was the guy whose campaign recipe was “Corbyn lite in an authentic scouse sauce” so I can’t see the hatchet that had to be buried here. Surely if he wanted to reach out, Lucy Powell was a better choice? And before you shout “too inexperienced”, have a gaze back at the two serial backbenchers holding the two top jobs now.
Before any of you jump in on this: yes, the Lib Dems are pretty crap at this too. Which leads me to ask: why is it that any “progressive” party that has a realistic shot at holding power is so bad when it comes to promoting women? Particularly when the supposed draconian right-wing party has already had a woman leader and currently has a woman running the Home Office?
Anyhow if this all comes across as another stick to beat Corbyn with, it isn’t: I’m genuinely sad about this. I didn’t think British politics was going to gain much from the Tom and Jeremy epoch, but I think subconsciously I’d sort of banked greater women’s representation. And we’re not even going to get that from the looks of things. Under Corbyn’s watch, the penistocracy that is the Labour Party high command seems destined to continue.
It is rather disappointing, particularly from the man who promised 50% of his cabinet would be women, so clearly thinks there are plenty of skilled women to choose from. Corbyn promised a new kind of politics, but that doesn’t seem to have started with his cabinet appointments, political allies in the top spots is a common move, look at Cameron and Osborne.
Additionally, it is rather worrying for the future of Labour unity that none of the 4 big positions are filled by proper Blairites. Corbyn obviously isn’t. McDonnell is his close ally, Burnham was the second most left wing of the candidates, and Hilary Benn supports him on Syria. Where are the people who can bring the disparate elements of the party together?
“I think Enoch Powell’s exhumed corpse would make a better shadow chancellor than McDonnell”
I can never tell when you’re being serious.
I think the overall picture is in a way worse that that; Corbyn (and the aversion to Corbyn among his fellow MPs) is not only to blame here, so is Labour as a whole.
Oer the three elections announced in the last 3 days (Leader, Deputy Leader, Mayoral candidate) there has been probably the strongest, widest ever field of women Labour candidates: Cooper, Kendall, Creasy, Flint, Eagle, Jowell, Abbott, in an election presided over by the longest-running female Deputy Leader (Harman). And the only main resulting beneficiaries in terms of genuine power so far are Rosie Winterton and Eagle with her Business / ‘Shadow First Secretary of State’ compromise. At what point will the dam finally break?
I should nuance my comment above with reference to Kezia Dugdale, I think, but that was something really neither Harman or Corbyn had anything to do with.
He should have done better on ethnic minorities too.
If we are seeking an opinion on appointments within the shadow cabinet, then let me fill you in, it was a minority of the electorate that voted for the “party” currently in power, if the new leader has determined that “some” of his shadow cabinet are men, then so be it!!!
I do not see these appointments as a detriment to any election prospects, you only have to look at the muppets in power at present, it takes something when one of Cameron’s aids suggested that he was as useful as a marzipan dildo, roll on labour, we now have a real opposition to the crankies on the other side!?
First Corbyn is unelectable, his policies the idealistic flirtations of a undergraduate signing up to the SWP on fresher’s week, next even when he does do something extraordinary he’s not gone far enough and it’s deemed ‘appalling’.