What I was thinking this morning was how odd the Labour Party are. That is, the current make up of the Labour Party. It's now majority female (104 out of the 199 Labour MPs in parliament are women).
I've noted this female contingent before, often disparagingly. In fact, had I posted this morning when the the ink was still wet I would've continued in that vein. Now, in the contemplation of evening fall I don't quite have the venom in me. So I'll try to describe the stereotype more politely. They're the sort of women who often start sentences with, "As a working mother..." It's that type of politics. The social justice stuff, but with a HR department type vibe.
Actually, let's stop beating about the bush. This attempt at being nice is fooling nobody, let's just be honest. The women on the Labour Party benches remind me of a hen party. Irate, on the warpath, and looking for a man to blame. I remember when they were all berating Boris, demanding an apology because he'd used "bad language" in the chamber. I noted on this blog at the time that it was like seeing a man get scolded by a harem of housewives.
Of course, it no doubt comes across as sexist stating this. Perhaps it is. However, really I think it's quite the opposite. The other parties don't seem to have this problem. Labour seem to elevate women that have a victim mentality though. Being "a woman" is such a strong part of their political identity that they can't escape the stereotype. The role of an MP is supposed to be a leadership role - you're stepping up in your community to take charge and responsibility, the buck is supposed to stop with you. So you can't be a good leader if you have a mindset where you expect someone else (that is, someone above you in society) to dole out justice in your direction. Where the state and its male politicians are just another father figure you appeal to (and complain to) when problems arise.
To be blunt, you're not supposed to be complaining that your husband hasn't put the shelf up, you're supposed to be putting the shelf up yourself.
Either way, it is what it is, and I can't hide my opinion that these Labour MPs look so hysterical and hectoring.
Keir Starmer
This brings me to the key observation. Namely that Keir Starmer is the male at centre of all these females. It's such a strange social dynamic. Many, many people are commenting on the fact that Labour look set to win a landslide at the next election, however, few seem to envision what that government will look like. It'll be unlike any government in history in its make up in my opinion.
It also seems quite noteworthy to me that Keir Starmer comes across as slightly camp in his mannerisms. It's strangely fitting. Like it takes a male with that sort of personality to manage so many women of the hen party type. I can't really imagine a more masculine politician keeping such a situation in check. Especially after beating two female candidates in the leadership race. It's quite a feat.
It's a little like the Margaret Thatcher years in reverse. There you had a strong woman surrounded by males in a male dominated world. Here you'll have a male politician surrounded by females that behave like stereotypical housewives. It's so strange I'm amazed that it goes under the radar so much. Though I guess the people that see it are afraid to point it out and elaborate for fear of being called sexist, etc.
Carry On..
Earlier today I couldn't help but think in terms of Carry On movies. There you had a similar dynamic. The camp Kenneth Williams, surrounded by matrons and uptight housewives on the one side, the laddish Sid James & Co on the other, being all cheeky and politically incorrect.
With the Conservative Party moving more to right they could very well fit the Sid James role in opposition.
It seems so British. From a logical point of view it terrifies me. I just don't see how it will work. Seeing it through the lens of a Carry On movie (especially at Christmas) makes it feel more reassuring though. So perhaps it'll be alright after all.
It's also worth noting that if Labour do win a landslide that'll mean another cohort of new politicians. Given the positive discrimination I'm guessing that'll mean even more Joan Sims and Hattie Jacques. So the picture could be even starker. Though I noticed in the local elections this year that the Little Boy Labour* stereotype seemed to be the commoner trend. So who knows.
/////////////////////////////////////
*This is the moniker that instantly springs to mind whenever I see these new and incredibly young Labour politicians that pop up these days. It could partly be a bias stemming from the fact that I've finally reached my early 40s and politicians are starting to simply look younger to me. Though I think the theme is real. The current Middlesbrough mayor looks about twelve and is in fact just thirty-three years old. Likewise, the Labour MP Keir Mather, who won the Selby and Ainsty by-election this year is just twenty-five.
It's similar to the Harry Enfield 'Tory Boy' stereotype.
I think the underlying commonality in these two stereotypes is that the people are defined by their investment in the party, rather than by their own personal convictions. The Tory Boy vaguely believes whatever it is that the current manifestation of the Conservative Party believes. So, for example, a young conservative that has strong and genuinely held free market libertarian views, or strong traditional Christian views wouldn't be a 'Tory Boy,' as their personal convictions may put them in opposition to the party at times. Whereas the Tory Boy is always with the party, wherever it goes. Their worldview is the party.
I think it's similar with these young 'Little Boy Labour' types. I don't think they stand for anything in particular as individuals. They just have a vague belief in 'Labour Party values.' Which at present are a vague mix of socialism and social justice. In fact, when Keir Mather was elected there was a brief furore when he immediately stated that he supported Keir Starmer's policy of keeping the two-child benefit cap. Of course, there's nothing wrong with taking a particular policy view. Nor is it necessarily wrong to compromise and support policies you might not fully agree with in the party interest. However, when someone so young says something that's clearly so calculated it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. There's just something not right about it. There's the sense that someone so young can only be making such a judgement for the wrong reasons, as they're not old enough to have the sense of pragmatism. So therefore it must be self-interest, or a case of being misled by older party figures.
Anyway, that was a longer than anticipated addendum. Well done if you've reached this far.
No comments:
Post a Comment