Show Hide image

Watch: Stella Creasy trounces Austin Mitchell in a debate on the “feminisation of politics”

Austin Mitchell, who is stepping down as Labour MP for Great Grimsby at the next election, fails to defend his assertion that having more women in Parliament is a “worrying matter”.

Newsnight had Austin Mitchell on last night to defend his bizarre Mail on Sunday article, in which he attacked the Labour party’s “obsession” with all-women shortlists. Stella Creasy, Labour MP for Walthamstow and a prominent campaigner on feminist issues, took him to task for his views, asking whether he really believed open selections are done on merit. (Only 23 per cent of MPs are women, barely more than one fifth. In case you needed reminding, women are just over half the population of the UK.)

Mitchell responded that it was “up to Conservatives and Liberals to seize the baton and have more women on their side. But let’s give it a rest for the time being, see if the barriers have been broken down enough”.

For some reason, the clip seems to have been removed from YouTube by Newsnight, but you can watch it here:

For reference, 16 per cent of Conservative and 13 per cent of Lib Dem MPs are women, compared with 33 per cent of Labour MPs. (See this report for further figures.) To date, the Labour party remains the only one to have used all-women shortlists, and the only party to have made significant progress in increasing equality in its parliamentary party.

Some more key quotations from the exchange:

Austin Mitchell: We're becoming more social workers than international statesmen.

Stella Creasy: What I recognise is the drip, drip, drip of discrimination and prejudice that women face in every single sphere of public life... 

AM: Oh Stella, don't hector me.

SC: Oh I'm sorry Austin, is the sound turned up? Because I promise you I'm not shouting. I'm just frustrated that yet again we're seeing women being put down in this way.

***

SC: There are still now more men sat in parliament today than there have ever been women MPs... Tell me how many women is us doing our duty in a party that is designed to promote social justice, Austin? How many? Is there a particular number?

AM: Well, I mean, the proportion of women will be over 40 per cent if we were in power...

SC: Oh right, so about 40 per cent, so not parity, not equality, that's enough is it? We've got enough women have we?

AM: That's a good base to build on... I'm not suggesting we have a quota for old people.

Caroline Crampton is web editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

There are sinister goings-on in the race to become the UN's next Secretary-General

The United Nations can and must do better than this, says David Clark. 

2016 was meant to be a year of firsts for the United Nations as it prepares to choose a new Secretary-General. Optimism was growing that the top job would go to a woman for the first time in the world body’s seventy-year history. There was an emerging consensus that it should be someone from Eastern Europe, the only region never to have held the post, provided a candidate of the right calibre was put forward. Above all, the selection was supposed to break new ground in openness and transparency after decades in which decisions were stitched up in private by a handful of the most powerful countries. Innovations like open nominations, public campaigning and candidates hustings were introduced in a bid to improve public scrutiny.
 
All of that now threatens to be turned on its head as the battle to succeed Ban Ki-moon becomes embroiled in intrigues and plots, according to stories that have surfaced in the Belgian and Portuguese media in the last week. Allegations centre on the activities of former European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, and ex-Portuguese MEP turned lobbyist, Mario David. Both are said to be promoting the undeclared candidacy of Kristalina Georgieva, the serving European Commission Vice-President from Bulgaria. Barroso reportedly arranged for Georgieva to participate in a recent meeting of the Bilderberg group in order to boost her profile with world leaders. David is said to be touring the capitals of Eastern Europe to canvas support.
 
While there is nothing necessarily unusual about senior European politicians supporting a colleague in her bid for a major international job, there are two things that make this case very different. The first is that Bulgaria already has an official candidate in the person of Irina Bokova, a career diplomat currently serving her second elected term as Director-General of UNESCO. Reports suggest that Barroso is among those pressing the Bulgarian government to switch its nomination to Georgieva, while David’s role has been to find another country in the region willing to nominate her in the event that Bulgaria refuses to budge. The second piece of the puzzle is that Portugal also has an official candidate – its former Prime Minister, Antonio Guterres – who Barroso still publicly insists he is supporting.
 
It is in the nature of the way these matters are often decided that there is no necessary contradiction between these facts. Georgieva’s candidacy would appear to stand no real chance of success. She lacks diplomatic experience and news reports suggest that the Bulgarian Prime Minister’s decision not to support her was based on information linking her to the communist-era intelligence services. And while there is nothing to stop another country nominating her, precedent suggests that a lack of domestic support will be fatal to her chances. Georgieva is highly unlikely to end up as UN Secretary-General, yet she could still have a significant role to play as a spoiler. Bulgaria’s official candidate, Irina Bokova, is frequently described as the frontrunner. As a woman from Eastern Europe with heavyweight UN experience, she certainly has an edge. A rival Bulgarian woman candidate would create doubt about the strength of her support and potentially open the way for other candidates. The aspirants who stand to benefit most are men from outside Eastern Europe. Step forward Antonio Guterres.
 
Those with the best chance of preventing these manoeuvres from succeeding are the governments of Eastern Europe. Although the principle of rotation does not confer on them the automatic right to have one of their own chosen to run the UN, a degree of unity and professionalism in the way they approach the contest would make their claim much harder to resist. Unfortunately there has so far been little evidence of the kind of collective solidarity and diplomatic co-ordination that helped to deliver the top UN job to Africa and Asia in the past. The strongest advocate for Eastern Europe is currently Russia, although it has stopped short of threatening to use its veto in the way that China was prepared to do for Asia when Ban Ki-moon was appointed in 2006.
 
In addition to casting doubt on Eastern Europe’s chances, the descent into private plotting is an ominous warning to those campaigning for the UN to become more open and representative – the appointment of a new Secretary-General may not prove to be the turning point they had hoped for. What is the point of public hustings for candidates when the real discussions are taking place at a closed meeting of Bilderberg group? Why bother to encourage women candidates to put forward their names when the power brokers of international diplomacy already have their man? Seventy years after it was established, the UN should have found a better way to do this. It still can.

David Clark was Robin Cook’s special adviser at the Foreign Office 1997-2001.