Labour’s NEC has voted to create a second deputy leader position, which wi be elected from an all-women shortlist.
Current deputy leader Tom Watson argued for the new position, presumably as a face-savung measure rather than argue against it and risk losing.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Tom doesn’t strike me as the sort of guy who gives up power easily, I wonder what Machiavellian plot lies behind this.
Complete waste of time,the best candidate should get the job regardless of sex.Tom Watson is definitely not that person!I can only assume that this is an attempt for him to cling on to that position even shared with someone else rather than put it to the vote.Members have already made it clear that he would be gone.
I tend to agree with Audrey. Rather than face the problem i.e. Tom Watson, this is another fudge to kick the can down the road.
It’s a recipe for disasater, giving the media the excuse to say ‘he that, she said this’ thus more chance for the media to exploit splits.
With a decent, loyal deputy leader there is absolutely no need for another deputy, the remedy is obvious and the solution is Chris Williamson.
Which would take over if the party leader became “permanently unavailable”?
Job share to oversee until election, if in opposition. Might have to make other consideration as to PM in govt though. I have supported 2 deputies one of each gender, Then means leader will be best candidate regardless of gender.
I voted for Watson, but have been very disappointed by his lack of support for members and leadership. The other candidates were no better, and I would like to see both deputy posts put to a membership election.
A “job share” still leaves the problem of which of the two would be “Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition” (or PM?), which doesn’t allow for sharing. So it doesn’t really solve it.
I support a deputy leader female too but would NEVER vote for Watson.
Left wing democratic socialist Labour members at Conference – TAKE THE POWER!
Hope Emily Thornberry is on the ballot
That would make the centrist happy for sure .
Cannot understand this apparently annual procedure now of voting in a pro-Corbyn NEC after much campaigning then allowing NEC meetings of the committee on its way out to pass parthian motions with a view first to tip the balance back.
The problem is that we have “a committee on it’s way out”.
It should be thacase that the newly elected NEC steps up straight away .
The hanging around of the old committee lays the path open for those out of tune with the mood of the party to cause mischief, and we saw that with the illegal treatment of the call for a card vote last year.
On the issue of party democracy, we still have a long way to go, because democracy is the wellspring of socialism/ proper, real social-democracy.
I have just shown this article to the lads in the pub.
We are aastrongly political bunch.
A frequent question was “Why do we need a second deputy leader?”
I explaned that, because the leader is a bloke and the deputy is a pillock, a woman deputy would provide balance.
This explanation was roundly accepted and endorsed!
There is little if any confidence in Watson here.
“I explaned that, because the leader is a bloke and the deputy is a pillock, a woman deputy would provide balance.”
Let’s hope LP doesn’t end up with two pillocks as deputy then, a man and a woman!
Being a woman is no guarantee of being either a Socialist, compassionate or even left once in a position of power. Hilary “we came, we saw, he died” Clinton a rabid warmonger and ex Goldwater girl’, Madeline “we think the price was worth it” Albright, Margaret ‘the milk snatcher’ Thatcher, Teresa ‘privatisation fanatic and benefit snatcher’ May… need I go on? Of course Thatcher and May never claimed to be left but they were/are women!
Gender has zero to do with political orientation especially when power strikes. There is a real danger LP will elect another wolf in sheep’s clothing here especially on foreign policy.
I don’t understand the reason for this . Has it occurred to the NEC that the reason we have not had a woman as leader or DL is because there hasn’t been anyone suitable? Positive discrimination is now just blatant discrimination. What the members wanted in my circles was a challenge to Warson and a new DL of either sex . Have they said who will be voting the members or the NEC and PLP and who will draw up the short list ? Can you imagine the damage Watson and Phillips could do? Sounds like the final leaving card from Black and Izzard
Watson is a political moron in my humble opinion.
You are not alone.
Oh to demonstrate my point Watson in The Observer writes that he was elected on a mandate of giving members power when many feel ever since he has done the exact opposite of this! Then he says we should listen to members if they want a second Brexit referendum (which he supports) but then says he doesn’t support mandatory reselections so he is perhaps selective re members power? My view is if Labour supports a second referendum it may sneak defeat from the jaws of victory!
And to further demonstrate Watson is a hypocrite who now says he supports (some) members power at one of the first NEC meetings Pre-Conference (before Left gains) he brought in proposals to have extra NEC positions for the then (Right Wing) Scottish and Welsh Ledaers, an extra places for (Right Wing) Councillors and for (Right Wing MPs) thus shoring up the power of (Right Wing) MPs against members. Would you by a second hand car from this twit? And we still don’t know who secretly recorded part of an NEC meeting and leaked it to the media but whoever it was is certainly THE KING OF GAUL!
How can any woman take pride in her position knowing she was chosen because of her sex? I was hoping the AWSL’s this year would be shelved as they have accomplished what they set out to do
What’s next AWSL for the leadership ? We know Jess P and her mentor Harriet H would have a political ‘exotic spresm’
This is a PR stunt.
The gender of a person becomes irrelevant if the said person endorses policies which actively hurt the same gender. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.
Hillary Clinton would not have made a more compassionate president. She would have made a warmonger leader who looked after the ruling class at the expense of working class men and women.
Perhaps this stunt is designed to deflect accusations of sexism from the hypocritical mainstream media (BBC sexism) and the Tories (their own sexism).
I have supported 2 deputies one of each gender, Then means leader will be best candidate regardless of gender.
I voted for Watson, but have been very disappointed by his lack of support for members and leadership. The other candidates were no better, and I would like to see both deputy posts put to a membership election.
Angela Rayner.
That is all.
Lisa Nandy told Sophy Ridge this morning she wants a female double for the leader of the party. Pass this rule change and it would be difficult to argue against duel leadership,we know Jess Phillips is gagging to be leader by hook or by crook
It’s easy to see the party within a party is coming along nicely but the only hurdle is the membership ,how will a moderate or centrist gain the votes ? How about a female DL voted by the PLP only ? Or a centrist short list maybe ? Again the power still lays with the few
Equality & Social injustice is more a class issue than gender in GB. If you seek to address inequality, go look @ the downtrodden in society. Quota systems replace one corrupt system with another & a mono gender shortlist will only favour the comfortable bourgeoisie who are already privileged. You have to become a solicitor B4 you can become a Labour MP.
If the bourgeois elites want to address gender issues in the Labour Party let them start with Bex Bailey. My problem with Karon Monaghan’s ‘investigation’ is that it was not an investigation into establishing facts about the alleged rape & ‘subsequent cover-up & mis-information’, but Labour Party ‘procedures’. Good procedures are important, but there are more important questions that are not addressed. Why weren’t the police involved as per request by Ed Milliband? 7 years later, but while working for Liz Kendall never a mention nor conversation, neither to Harriet Harman as NEC rep. More importantly there may be ‘rapist’ at large in the Labour Party & another senior official who advised her to remain silent? Why don’t we know who they are or is it more important that they remain anonymous so that they can continue their predatory activities? Or is there another agenda?
As far as I’m aware Bex Bailey has refused to lodge an official complaint with either the police or the Labour party. She has also refused to name her alleged assailant. It is difficult to see how any meaningful progress can be made in her particular case until she does
If an official complaint has not been made & investigated, how can anyone be sure that the allegation is true, unless the process now guarantees that any accusation must always be true & no defence is possible? Strange also, that in the case of domestic abuse, if the woman refuses to testify against her ‘partner’ she will be prosecuted. Strange also that the ‘investigation’ is only interested in procedures & not social justice nor ensuring that the perpetrators will be named. Is any woman now safe in the Labour Party from predators who cannot be named? Now it is preferable to be able to report an allegation, rather than prevent it. Better the perpetrators remain anonymous. No questions asked, better not.
It is also my understanding (and I welcome corrections if I am mistaken in this) that when Bex received the now infamous advice from ‘a senior party official’ she was seeking advice as to the possible repercussions if she made an official complaint of rape by a party official but refused to name her alleged rapist in her complaint.
What advise should have been given?
Not quite. According to her testimony, which has been mediated by MSM, she was advised that if she made a formal complaint, it would affect her career. Why do you ask what advice should have been given; could you not hazard a guess? There are a great many more questions that will never be asked & the perpetrators remain free & anonymous. Is that acceptable?
I don’t disagree with what you have said but my recollection is that she also said that she wouldn’t reveal the identity of the person she was accusing. I remember it because at the time I thought it was nonsensical. The fact remains that despite Bex bravely appearing on the TV and in other media to describe her ordeal that she has yet to make an official complaint to anyone
Unfortunately you sidestepped my question about what she should have been advised.
As far as the alleged rapist remaining free then there is only one just solution to this and that is for Bex to report this incident to the police and the party should offer her all reasonable assistance and support to do this.
The Labour Party lacks both the competence and the authority to investigate a crime as serious as rape.