Oliver Rose is a Conservative Party activist who twice-stood for local election. He is also a public affairs professional.
126 years ago, the Labour Party was formed under the name ‘The Labour Representation Committee.’ Since their inception, they have had 22 different leaders, of which 7 have become Prime Minister.
Each of these leaders will have had their own upbringing, their own philosophy (or lack thereof in some cases) and their own agenda, which is what sets them apart from one another. But there is one thing that each of these leaders have in common.
They are all men.
Far be it from me to use identity politics, but it is only right for it to be used when a party such as the Labour Party places representation, diversity and inclusion at the heart of its political messaging. We have often heard from various senior Labour MPs about the need for a 50/50 Parliament and for women only candidates lists.
Yet, they seem to be failing keeping up with their own goals. This is particularly striking when you contrast this record with the record of the Conservative Party who have had four women leaders, of which three have become Prime Minister – with a fourth hopefully on the way.
Indeed, Labour has a history of weaponising identity politics against us Tories in an attempt to portray us as old fashioned and out of touch. That we are the party of old Etonians whilst they are the champions of women. But the reality is the complete opposite.
Labour has continually failed to elect a female leader. In fact, women have never even gotten close to holding the top job. The first woman to contest a Labour leadership election was Margaret Beckett in 1994 following the death of then party leader John Smith. She came a distant third, losing out to John Prescott and Tony Blair. Since then, five other women have thrown their hat intp the ring to be Labour leader.
All have failed, and none have surpassed more than 28 per cent of the vote share. If we look at the other side, there have been nine women who have run to be Conservative leader, with the first being Margaret Thatcher in 1975. Four have gone onto win and become leader and in 2016 we were even set to have a woman versus woman final in that election… so much for the old-fashioned party that is dominated by men.
The real question, however, is why? Why have Labour, a party that lathers itself in pro diversity and inclusion rhetoric, failed to elect a woman leader?
The answer is simple: because the party has been dominated by performative males.
If you are unaware as to what a performative male is, the Urban Dictionary definition is “A subgenre of ‘nice guys’ that tries too hard to be in touch with their feminine side or pretends to like feminine things to improve their popularity with girls. This will often mean ditching their true selves to put up a façade…”
Chances are you have probably met a performative male at some point. The sort of bloke that sits in a pub with a pint of a weirdly named IPA, whilst deliberately reading Emily Bronte in front of a group of women and decrying how he is a huge feminist. If you have seen a performative male, you have also probably thought that they were being completely disingenuous, and you would be right to think so. This is what has plagued the Labour Party for years and we have heard it time and time again from Starmer and other senior Labour MPs on how they are ‘firm feminists’ and want to elevate women, yet they suffer from the classic case of “Do as I say, not as I do”.
The truth is that a performative male doesn’t really care much for women’s issues. They just put on an act to win favour, and it can be argued that this is the same case within the Labour Party.
At the time of writing, we are just a few days away from the Makerfield by-election, where much of the Labour Party is hoping for a Burnham victory. This scenario perfectly encapsulates the consistency of failure within the Labour Party on this topic. Typically, the main contenders (and therefore the winners of a leadership election) are those who have held one of the ‘Great Offices of State’.
As we look at the current holders of those offices; Rachel Reeves, Shabana Mahmood and Yvette Cooper what similarity do we see? They are all women! Yet, not one of them is even in the discussion as being a potential successor to Starmer.
Instead, Labour MPs are relying on a man who hasn’t been in Government in sixteen years and who hasn’t been an MP in nine years to lead the party. If you are a female MP in the Labour Party, then this really must seem like a smack in the face. Whilst Labour like to put their female Cabinet Ministers on a pedestal and praise them for being a woman reaching high levels in a male dominated field, they also seem to kick it out from underneath them if they ever have any hope of climbing the next rung on the ladder.
As you look throughout the history of the Labour Party, it is not as though there haven’t been women capable enough to have been leader. But the issue that these women have faced, and the reason why women will continue to struggle to lead the Labour party is because of identity.
For the past few decades, the Labour Party has been obsessed with identity politics. We still see thos today, most notably when Rachel Reeves reminds us at every opportunity she gets that she is the first female Chancellor. But, because of this fixation on identity, these women have been reduced to nothing more than their identity. Not their ideology, or worldview, but whether or not they are a woman.
On the opposite side of the political aisle, the Conservatives have quite a liberal view when it comes to leadership elections. As we look at leadership elections in the past, the focus has primarily been on the candidate’s ideology. Not if they were a man or a woman.
When Margaret Thatcher ran against Edward Heath in the 1975 leadership election, the narrative of that election wasn’t ‘man versus woman.’ It was ‘continuation of consensus versus radical new economics’ which would then transform into Thatcherism. Even in the most recent leadership election, the focus was not on the identities of the two final candidates, but on which of those candidates would best rebuild the Conservative party and which had the best plan for the country.
That contradiction does not necessarily invalidate Labour’s arguments about representation, for it is good to have a wide range of representation both in people and ideas. But it does expose a gap between rhetoric and reality within the Labour Party. If representation truly matters, then Labour’s inability, or unwillingness, to elect a woman leader is one of the most remarkable and least discussed facts in modern British politics, and it is only those in the Labour Party who can change this. Whether or not this will happen any time soon however, is a different story.
Oliver Rose is a Conservative Party activist who twice-stood for local election. He is also a public affairs professional.
126 years ago, the Labour Party was formed under the name ‘The Labour Representation Committee.’ Since their inception, they have had 22 different leaders, of which 7 have become Prime Minister.
Each of these leaders will have had their own upbringing, their own philosophy (or lack thereof in some cases) and their own agenda, which is what sets them apart from one another. But there is one thing that each of these leaders have in common.
They are all men.
Far be it from me to use identity politics, but it is only right for it to be used when a party such as the Labour Party places representation, diversity and inclusion at the heart of its political messaging. We have often heard from various senior Labour MPs about the need for a 50/50 Parliament and for women only candidates lists.
Yet, they seem to be failing keeping up with their own goals. This is particularly striking when you contrast this record with the record of the Conservative Party who have had four women leaders, of which three have become Prime Minister – with a fourth hopefully on the way.
Indeed, Labour has a history of weaponising identity politics against us Tories in an attempt to portray us as old fashioned and out of touch. That we are the party of old Etonians whilst they are the champions of women. But the reality is the complete opposite.
Labour has continually failed to elect a female leader. In fact, women have never even gotten close to holding the top job. The first woman to contest a Labour leadership election was Margaret Beckett in 1994 following the death of then party leader John Smith. She came a distant third, losing out to John Prescott and Tony Blair. Since then, five other women have thrown their hat intp the ring to be Labour leader.
All have failed, and none have surpassed more than 28 per cent of the vote share. If we look at the other side, there have been nine women who have run to be Conservative leader, with the first being Margaret Thatcher in 1975. Four have gone onto win and become leader and in 2016 we were even set to have a woman versus woman final in that election… so much for the old-fashioned party that is dominated by men.
The real question, however, is why? Why have Labour, a party that lathers itself in pro diversity and inclusion rhetoric, failed to elect a woman leader?
The answer is simple: because the party has been dominated by performative males.
If you are unaware as to what a performative male is, the Urban Dictionary definition is “A subgenre of ‘nice guys’ that tries too hard to be in touch with their feminine side or pretends to like feminine things to improve their popularity with girls. This will often mean ditching their true selves to put up a façade…”
Chances are you have probably met a performative male at some point. The sort of bloke that sits in a pub with a pint of a weirdly named IPA, whilst deliberately reading Emily Bronte in front of a group of women and decrying how he is a huge feminist. If you have seen a performative male, you have also probably thought that they were being completely disingenuous, and you would be right to think so. This is what has plagued the Labour Party for years and we have heard it time and time again from Starmer and other senior Labour MPs on how they are ‘firm feminists’ and want to elevate women, yet they suffer from the classic case of “Do as I say, not as I do”.
The truth is that a performative male doesn’t really care much for women’s issues. They just put on an act to win favour, and it can be argued that this is the same case within the Labour Party.
At the time of writing, we are just a few days away from the Makerfield by-election, where much of the Labour Party is hoping for a Burnham victory. This scenario perfectly encapsulates the consistency of failure within the Labour Party on this topic. Typically, the main contenders (and therefore the winners of a leadership election) are those who have held one of the ‘Great Offices of State’.
As we look at the current holders of those offices; Rachel Reeves, Shabana Mahmood and Yvette Cooper what similarity do we see? They are all women! Yet, not one of them is even in the discussion as being a potential successor to Starmer.
Instead, Labour MPs are relying on a man who hasn’t been in Government in sixteen years and who hasn’t been an MP in nine years to lead the party. If you are a female MP in the Labour Party, then this really must seem like a smack in the face. Whilst Labour like to put their female Cabinet Ministers on a pedestal and praise them for being a woman reaching high levels in a male dominated field, they also seem to kick it out from underneath them if they ever have any hope of climbing the next rung on the ladder.
As you look throughout the history of the Labour Party, it is not as though there haven’t been women capable enough to have been leader. But the issue that these women have faced, and the reason why women will continue to struggle to lead the Labour party is because of identity.
For the past few decades, the Labour Party has been obsessed with identity politics. We still see thos today, most notably when Rachel Reeves reminds us at every opportunity she gets that she is the first female Chancellor. But, because of this fixation on identity, these women have been reduced to nothing more than their identity. Not their ideology, or worldview, but whether or not they are a woman.
On the opposite side of the political aisle, the Conservatives have quite a liberal view when it comes to leadership elections. As we look at leadership elections in the past, the focus has primarily been on the candidate’s ideology. Not if they were a man or a woman.
When Margaret Thatcher ran against Edward Heath in the 1975 leadership election, the narrative of that election wasn’t ‘man versus woman.’ It was ‘continuation of consensus versus radical new economics’ which would then transform into Thatcherism. Even in the most recent leadership election, the focus was not on the identities of the two final candidates, but on which of those candidates would best rebuild the Conservative party and which had the best plan for the country.
That contradiction does not necessarily invalidate Labour’s arguments about representation, for it is good to have a wide range of representation both in people and ideas. But it does expose a gap between rhetoric and reality within the Labour Party. If representation truly matters, then Labour’s inability, or unwillingness, to elect a woman leader is one of the most remarkable and least discussed facts in modern British politics, and it is only those in the Labour Party who can change this. Whether or not this will happen any time soon however, is a different story.