A shortage of women candidates risks undermining the case for city mayors.
I present a weekly programme on LBC 97.3 (10am-1pm on a Saturday if you fancy calling in). If you live outside London, you may only just have come across LBC. Following a lively radio debate as part of the London mayoral campaign, Boris Johnson squared up to Ken Livingstone in an LBC lift and accused him of being a liar over the question of tax and pay arrangements. This stand-off has been widely reported.
LBC bosses are delighted with the attention. Siobhain McDonagh MP made the point on my programme on Saturday that it has at least got people talking about the mayoral election. She’s right. However, it has also highlighted one of the downsides of the mayoral system. I very much hope that the case for a mayor will be won in the referendums being held in 10 of our major cities and that Labour will win in the three elections that are already taking place on 3 May. City mayors can provide a clarity of accountability and a focus for change and renewal in areas that need the regeneration, the skills and the kickstart to pride and aspiration that a strong mayoral champion could bring. On a more tactical point, they will also provide the opportunity for a Labour alternative to the Tory-led government. We’ve already seen Labour councils developing the types of alternative policies which will be fundamental to a future Labour national manifesto. Labour mayors will be the face of the alternative to Tory-led Britain.
However, as we’ve seen in London, there is also a risk that mayoral elections can bring out the worst sort of testosterone-loaded, big beast politics. Being a strong and effective leader in a city does not require you to be able to square up to your opponents in a lift but, unless there is an urgent change in those coming forward to be candidates, testosterone will be the factor that links most of the mayoral candidates.
Nan Sloane at the Centre for Women and Democracy has put together an important, but depressing, preliminary report on the involvement of women candidates in mayoral elections. She points out that 14 percent of candidates for the three mayoral posts being contested on 3 May are women. In Liverpool, there are 12 candidates and no women at all. This is the lowest percentage ever in the history of directly elected mayoral elections in the UK. It represents a significant decrease on 2011, when 21 per cent of mayoral candidates were women, but continues the underlying pattern of mayoral elections attracting fewer women candidates than council elections, in which around 30 per cent of candidates are usually female. In the 14 areas which already have executive elected mayors only two are women. This covers all parties, but there is no evidence that Labour is outperforming other parties when it comes to gender balance in mayoral candidates.
A successful mayor will need to build a strong team around them; be the champion for their city but able to delegate to deliver effectively; recognise the change that will impact on the everyday lives of those they serve. All of these jobs can be done at least as effectively by women as by men. What’s more, we cannot call ourselves a party which values diversity and equality if we field a team of mayoral candidates which take gender equality in politics back to the dark ages.
As Richard Angell points out in his recent Progress magazine piece about the speed with which the mayoral selections will happen: ‘Time is tight. The process is against you. But if you act now, get organised and have a vision for your city, it is time to step forward.’ It is time to step forward for Labour women – your party and your city needs you.
—————————————————————————————
Jacqui Smith is former home secretary and writes the Monday Politics column for Progress
—————————————————————————————
Let me guess All men capable of doing the job should be forced to stop applying and women only candidates (no matter if they have the capability or not ) selected.
I was in Birmingham a few weeks ago and got into a conversation with a cab driver about the mayoral referendum in the city. I was momentarily flummoxed when he asked me whether women could be mayors.
Thinking about it, though, it’s a reasonable question. There are very few female candidates, certainly from the mainstream parties, for mayoral elections, whether in London or outside. There will be those – like Andy below – who say that this will be used as an excuse for all-women shortlists. I think that this makes light of the problem and provides cover for the real issue about candidate selection.
It’s not only women who are seemingly excluded, it’s those with real-life experience but perhaps not ‘time-served’ experience too – and there’s often an overlap. As a Party, we need to see beyond ‘Bill’s turn’ or ‘Jim’s turn’ . We need to be far braver about our selections, and that includes selecting women.
Why aren’t women coming forward? What are the specific barriers? No one is seriously saying men are throwing these up, or are you? More likely, the Mayoral system is counter-productive toward women, as it places an emphasis on high profile individuals, publicity conscious people and flamboyant characters, which are mainly male figures, although there women like this to (e.g. the Tory mayor in North Tyneside). I am in local government and women are imposed as Councillors, so why doesn’t Labour do this with Mayors then? I know why but not saying!
This is an exceptionally poor piece of analysis. There are to my knowledge no legal, procedural or statutory barriers in place stopping a woman from standing as a Mayoral candidate. It is absurd, absolutely absurd to state that the Labour Party does not support gender equality if no women have decided (for whatever reason) to stand as a candidate. This really is fighting the battles of 50 years ago. If ALL the candidates were women, then great. If ALL the candidates were men, then great. So long as any barrier to candidates of whatever gender, race, religion to stand are removed, it should not be the role of the party to determine whoever stands, so long as they meet the criteria required. There is also a rather lazy inference in the penultimate paragraph that delegation and team work can only be undertaken by women. This is really poor.