Wednesday, October 05, 2016
Women don’t cut it at the top, as the latest female shrinking violet leader, Diane James, attests
Just as I've outlined in my paper, 'The Reasons Why Women Won't Match Men in the Workplace Irrespective of Whatever Action is Taken' (Submission to the Commons select Committee Inquiry, 'Women in the Workplace'), women in general neither make nor want to make leader. [See stevemoxon.co.uk]
Diane James clearly was never leadership material, and became UKIP leader only because she had her arm twisted and very foolishly agreed. No surprise, then, that she's since ducked everything a leader is supposed to do. Look at Andrea Leadsom's eagerness to quit the Conservative race at the very first sign of anything she had to deal with. A risible capitulation. And then there was the utterly pathetic bid by Andjella to contest Jerwammy for the Liebore crown. The sum-total of her 'campaign' seemed to be to have her first name squiggled on her platform on a background of pink – the colour of Hattie Harpie's daft bus to recruit more fembots. And look how she's disappeared without trace.
There is plenty of other current evidence of female leadership ducking and failure. The string of resigning female chairs of the Government's child sex abuse inquiry, for a start. And what about the current new clutch of women Ministers? The dire – to say the least – Tory Conference inaugural speech by Liz Truss as the new Justice Secretary had to be heard to be believed. As even would-be sympathetic commentators writing for the Telegraph and Mail agreed, a Stepford Wife would have been less wooden. Ditto the new Culture Secretary, Karen Bradley. And the post of Education Secretary has been inhabited by a string of useless women. Justine Greening, for goodness sake. But what about Nicky Morgan for someone out of her depth? Like a juvenile rabbit caught in the headlights. At least the dreadfully arrogant Anna Soubry has gone. But haven't we still got the inarticulate feebleness that is Priti Patel? [Well, she gets the Conservative Party double brownie points, of course, being as she comes under the 'BEM' as well as 'wymyn' fraudulent 'victim' tags.]
Amber Rudd hardly stood out that well from the female shower, and look at the uselessness of her predecessor: Teresa May as the former Home secretary was a do-nothing keeping-her-head-down coward. No leadership; just a determination not to do anything which could expose her to the usual end of Home Secretaries: the sack. She did nothing about the hopeless immigration system, despite not merely wildly missing target reductions but presiding over actual increases. The police she left as effectively an administrative but non-operational shell, and set up an absurd 'PC' inquiry into mostly mythical sex abuse.
Still in the honeymoon period of her premiership, we shouldn't hold our breath that May is going to be much better than her sole quality of conscientiousness can deliver. Great leaders need far more than that. Of course, she may prove an exception. It's just that exceptions here are rare, and, even then, flawed. Margaret Thatcher, anyone? She dropped several major clangers, and overall actually facilitated the creation of the very problem of a hollowing-out of society (and not excluding commerce) by globalisation that she had sought to be a bulwark against. And as with female leaders down through history, was actually more war-mongering than male counterparts.
As for Hilary Clinton: where do you start? There are reasons why the Donald can do little wrong. Apart from being personally horrible, Mrs Clintont is 'groupthink' 'PC' and big business conformity incarnate, who has got where she is on the nepotistic coat-tails of Bill. Ah, nepotism: how very female.
At least even Jerwammy … well, OK, there are male leadership disasters too – though in the context of the disaster that is Liebore, could anybody make a fist of it? Even if you resurrected a great leader from the past.
It's just that with males it's considerably less guaranteed that leadership will fail. The root of the problem is that with women just not motivated at root to compete for status, then there will always be a far smaller pool of talent from which a leader can be chosen compared to the case re men. People – and the sex-dichotomy in what makes people tick – are not going to change. Ever. So the real world will have to be welcomed back sooner or later. Equality of opportunity, everyone agrees with. Equality of outcome presupposes that what you start with is a uniform blank canvas, and that everyone, male and female is motivated the same. All that we know about the world tells us this isn't so. A start would be 'gender [sic] blindness' as to who to put forward and who to select. That was the original idea, wasn't it?
As for UKIP: the problem has been the failure to set the Party's core trajectory as anti-'PC' – against 'identity politics' – under Steve Crowther's chairmanship. Anti-'PC' is the future of politics, and UKIP has long been in danger of missing the boat.