Video summary
Harriet Harman, a veteran Labour politician and former Cabinet Minister who served as an MP for over forty years, recently sparked controversy on her podcast regarding the future leadership of the party. She argued that to ensure a woman leads the Labour Party in the next election cycle, men should be effectively barred from standing for the position or strongly discouraged from doing so by current male MPs. Harman suggested she would personally approach rising young stars within the party to ask if they were willing to step aside and support female candidates instead of running themselves. This proposal stems from her belief that while women's ambition needs encouragement, male ambition must be dampened for a specific period to achieve gender parity at the top.
However, legal experts in the discussion highlight significant issues with this stance under UK law. The Equality Act 2010, which Harman herself introduced during Gordon Brown's government as her proudest legislative achievement, contains an exemption allowing political parties to create single-sex shortlists for specific elections like those for Parliament or local councils. This exception is designed specifically to address inequality in elected offices and does not extend to internal party processes such as leadership elections. Consequently, barring men from running for the Labour Party leader position would likely be considered illegal sex discrimination because it excludes members based on their gender without falling under the specific protections granted by Section 104 of the Act.
The conversation also delved into the complexities of positive action versus direct discrimination within political parties and employment sectors. While Section 158 allows for some forms of positive action where a group faces disadvantage, excluding men entirely from leadership contests goes beyond proportionate measures to simply achieve diversity goals; it constitutes an exclusionary policy based on sex. The hosts discussed how right-wing groups often ironically use the Equality Act to defend individuals fired for religious reasons while simultaneously criticizing its restrictions in other areas like pay disputes. They noted that even if a party wanted to create women-only associations, applying such rules strictly to leadership elections creates legal vulnerabilities and contradicts the spirit of anti-discrimination laws Harman championed throughout her career.
Ultimately, the transcript reveals a tension between political aspiration for female representation and the rigid constraints of existing legislation. Critics in the video argue that while the desire for more women in power is valid, using discriminatory tactics to achieve it undermines the very principles of equality Harman has fought for since 2010. The discussion touched upon specific candidates like Emily Thornberry who were not selected despite being viable leaders, suggesting that personal preferences and internal politics often override merit or gender quotas regardless of legal frameworks. The video concludes by questioning whether such "discouragement" tactics are merely a polite way to enforce illegal exclusionary practices while maintaining the appearance of supporting women's advancement in high office.
Read the full video transcript
Harriet Harmon was one of the leading
figures in Labor during the 2000s. Uh
she was also an MP for more than 40
years. She sat down from her South
London seat at the last general
election. The first ever minister for
women under Tony Blair and responsible
for welfare reform after 1997. Harmon
was even briefly the leader of the
opposition. That came after Ed Milliban
lost the 2015 general election and she
was of course replaced by Jeremy Corbyn
and he was elected to the job that
autumn. Today, Harriet Harmon is a
Labour peer and party grande. So,
naturally, she has a podcast. It's
called Electoral Dysfunction, which she
co-hosts alongside Ruth Davidson and the
political editor at Sky News, Beth Riby.
And last week, Harmon had this to say on
the podcast about the future of the
Labour Party leadership. The only way
we'll have a woman leader of the Labour
Party next time is if we start a
conversation now where we say that
actually
that that it's that men cannot stand for
the leadership next time because if men
stand for the leadership next time we'll
have another
>> Are you going to have an all women's
list for the next labor? You can't do
that. I think what we need to do is for
for women's ambition to be encouraged
and male ambition to be the next leader
of the Labor Party
to be discouraged.
>> Do you think the next leader after Andy
Burnham, whoever that may be, has to be
a woman then?
>> Oh, I absolutely think so. And I think
I'm going to be asking any really
excellent young man MP, you know, rising
star in the Labour Party. I'll be
wanting to encourage and support them,
but I'll be saying to them,
are you going to support a woman next
time, or are you going to put yourself
in front and put a woman behind you?
>> I've had enough of this stuff, Michael.
Now, to be clear, in 2010, Dian Abbott
stood for the leadership of the Labour
Party. She's a woman. Harriet Harmon
didn't back her. In 2020, Rebecca Long
Bailey stood for the leadership of the
Labour Party. Guess what? Harriet Harmon
did back her. Uh, so I think there's a
little bit more going on than just the
gender of the candidates. Now, whatever
your views on that proposal, what you
might not know is that it's illegal.
That's because of the Equality Act
passed in the final days of the Gordon
Brown government in 2010. It's the UK's
main anti-discrimination law,
effectively consolidating a patchwork of
earlier legislation like the Sex
Discrimination Act and Race Relations
Act into a single statute. In short, the
law is designed to protect people from
discrimination, harassment, and
victimization based on nine protected
characteristics including age,
disability, gender reassignment,
marriage or civil partnership,
pregnancy, maternity, race, religion or
belief, sex, and sexual orientation. It
applies across employment, education,
housing, and the provision of goods and
services and covers several forms of
discrimination. All of that sounds
welcome, right? But here's where it gets
really interesting, at least in the
context of Harriet Harmon's comments.
Because while the relevant carve out in
the act, section 104, allows registered
political parties to make arrangements,
including single sex short lists for
selecting candidates, the scope for that
is explicit. It only applies to
selection of candidates for elections to
parliament, local government, the
Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh
Assembly. The legislation text confirms
this is tied specifically to a relevant
election where the purpose is reducing
inequality between the number of a
party's elected candidates who share a
protected characteristic and those who
don't. So, all women short list for the
Labour Party. Seems reasonable. But a
leadership election doesn't fit that
definition. That's because it's an
internal party process for choosing who
leads an organization or a mechanism for
selecting who stands for public office.
Uh leader and deputy leader elections
aren't listed amongst the relevant
elections that the exemption covers. So
the specific legal shield that makes all
women's short list lawful doesn't
automatically extend to who can run the
Labour Party. And without section 104
covering it, a leadership election
barring men would likely be judged to be
discriminatory under the law. It would
be illegal. After all, political parties
are treated as membership associations
under the act. And excluding members
from a benefit or opportunity on the
basis of their sex would be
discriminatory.
Certainly interesting. And more
interesting still is that the person who
introduced the 2010 Equality Act was,
you guessed it, Harriet Harmon.
She's proposing something which is
illegal under the legislation
she introduced.
Michael,
is it possible that Harriet Harmon
doesn't actually know the law that not
only she introduced, but she often says
is the greatest achievement in her
political career?
>> I mean, is she is she proposing it has
to be all men or isn't she just saying
she's going to discourage men from
standing? which is presumably a
different you know that if she's saying
she's saying I'm I'm going to try and
make it a bit taboo to stand as a man to
be the next leader of the Labour party
because I want the women to step
forward. I don't think that would be
illegal. It' be illegal to sort of have
in the rule book only well it might I
mean I don't know the law quite frankly
I said to you Michael I just spent a
good good couple of minutes telling you
the law. Yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah.
>> All women short list for the Labour
party or the Tory party or wherever
legal
>> but what I mean
>> doing it for the leadership illegal
>> but at the same time you're members of
get paid for different things don't
they? So isn't it always the case that
you can't discriminate unless it's for a
reasonable cause. So you can't
discriminate unless there's a a good
reason for doing it. Um which is why you
can have like women only associations
whatever. Right. So so and there was a
there is a women's equality party. I
think you have to be a woman to join it.
So clearly you can be a political party
that excludes men and their leader can
presumably only be a woman.
>> I don't I I suspect that isn't actually
lawful, Michael. No,
>> I suspect they strongly discourage it.
>> Yeah, but I mean she's talking about
strongly discouraging it anyways, isn't
she? She's saying I will talk to male
members of the Labour Party and say
maybe this time don't put yourself
forward. I mean, I don't think that's a
particularly I don't I don't think
that's particularly strong politics. I
think it's a bit naff, but um I'm not
sure it's illegal. What do you think of
the politics of it? Because
to be clear, it is illegal to have an
all male or all female short list um
exclusively short list or any kind of um
protected characteristic under the law.
It is illegal and you're saying that
she's not saying that.
I've heard many times by the way people
say these things in the Labor Party. The
extent of the Equality Act is quite
extraordinary. If we are hiring somebody
here at Navara Media and on Slack I say
we should just hire a woman
>> that breaches the Equality Act during
the hiring process. It's a very serious
thing and I find it really interesting
Michael that employers around the
country have to know this stuff inside
out otherwise they're going to get
rinsed by the way as they should as they
should do. You shouldn't be able to
discriminate against people on the basis
of a special characteristic. I I I agree
with that.
But I sincerely think that people like
Harry Harmon don't think that those
rules should a apply to them or b they
don't necessarily know them inside out
and c I don't think they understand
the extent to which they cail the
decisions made by organizations every
single day across the country. I don't I
really don't think they understand it. I
think you know at one point she wanted
more women more women in parliament and
so good like I say I support a woman
short list
and so we had this legislation and now
because she wants a female leader of the
Labour party she's kind of saying the
opposite thing she's at least going
against the spirit of the laws she's
advocated if not you know the letter I
think it's probably both actually
and I find it really strange and I think
it says again so much about sort of DEI
liberalism I know you're not not much is
animating Michael today maybe he's on uh
maybe he's on sort of beta blockers like
that looks max what's his name
>> I think Harry I
>> are you looks maxing Michael
>> um no I'm quite like sweaty and need to
get back into the gym myself but so I
just I'm trying to I'm thinking about
this yeah I mean the politics is a bit
nerf but it is also kind of crazy that
Labour party still hasn't had a female
leader
>> because people kept voting against it
>> yeah there's something to that
>> I I was a Labour member in 2020 I voted
for Rebecca Long Bailey who did you vote
for
>> I voted for Becca Long Bailey there you
go
>> so I have voted for a female leader of
the labor There you go. And somebody
like Harriet Harmon will say, "Why are
By the way, it's legit to say, why are
two men talking about this, but I voted
for a female leader of the Labour Party.
You didn't.
I'm tired of this." Basically, what
she's saying is, "I want somebody I like
to be leader of the Labour Party. I want
a woman." Okay. Can they be Rebecca Long
Bailey? No. CAN THEY BE ZOROSA?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
So what you have is is this masquerade
where people are talking about equality
and you know liberation politics but
it's actually about no I want to get my
way. Look at the talent pool of women on
the Labor right. Okay.
>> They should have gone with Emily Form.
>> Who would you say who would you say is a
is a viable leader of the Labour Party
from the Labor right? Who would you say?
Tell me. Again maybe I'm being a
misogynist. Who? Tell me. I can name a
ton of women in the Labour party who
should be the leader or could be the
leader. Emily Thornbury. I mean, I
wouldn't put on the labor right to start
with.
>> No, but I mean, they should have gone
with her in 2020. Same politics as
Karma, but actually with some charisma,
but she didn't go anywhere. Um, which
was a shame. Well, I mean, I didn't back
up at the time, but in retrospect was a
shame. It would have been better if she
got the job.
>> I can see the Tik Toks now. G&Ts with
Emily.
>> Exactly.
>> The evening Tik Tok at 6 p.m. But look,
it's even strange that they're saying
this about Andy Burnham when the person
who's basically driving his whole agenda
is Luis Heg.
>> Mhm.
>> Right.
>> And Analise Migley. and and Mitchell is
his chief whip. So given the chancellor
isn't actually that powerful, John
Healey is basically doing what he's
told, right? John who's John Healey is
is is a factor. He's he's doing what
he's told by
>> we don't know that yet, but so it's a
strong hypothesis.
>> John Healey is not a political
heavyweight to be the excheer. He's
being told what to think in my view by
Jim O'Neal and and by Andy Haldane and
by Andy Burnham. Okay, that's why he got
the job. So, one could argue that the
two most powerful people in government
after Andy Burnham are Luis Hey and
Anelise Mitchell. They're the real power
brokers, but that counts for nothing,
right? That counts for nothing. And um
Andy Burnham is a brochist
uh because, you know, Harriet Harmon
didn't get her way. And we saw the exact
same thing. There's this really peculiar
part of labor right politics that's
attached to this stuff. Andy Bernham
became the PM and the Labour Women's
Network and Jess Phillips immediately
start saying 50 50% of the cabinet have
to women that's quite sensible actually
fine 50% of the cabinet have to women I
think 50% of the great officers of state
have to women so it has to be two women
two you think well what if I want three
women is that discriminating against men
which quite plausible of course um what
are your thoughts on this guys let's get
something in the comments because often
you know I talk about this with female
comrades all the time women comrades all
the time and they They they say harsher
things than I do. Uh but maybe maybe I'm
out of touch.
>> So in the Equality Act, right, section
158 permits positive action generally
where a group faces disadvantage or
disproportionately low participation
provided it's proportionate. So if we
just
>> we just went literally went through all
of this.
>> But if you could argue that it was
proportionate because there had been
>> it's a private No, but a political party
is a private association. We've gone
through all of this. I literally just
spoke for about three minutes explaining
all of this.
Well, we'll get a fine. I'll take your
version of it. By the
>> way, I think the Equality Act, I think
it's a lot of it's crazy, a lot of it's
good. And what's really ironic is that
right-wingers keep using the Equality
Act to get their way. So, for instance,
a teacher might be uh sacked for for
saying something which is in keeping
with his Christian faith. He might be a
real hardcore, you know, zealot, and I
mean that in the religious sense, and
he'll get sacked. And the exact same
people who I hate the Farage of the
world, I hate the Equality Act, they'll
defend this chap. He'll get a big payout
because of the Equality Act.
>> There's nothing wrong with saying you're
against something but then using it.
>> No, I think but my point is I don't
think it's particularly well formulated
legislation, but I I think it's I think
it's better than not having it. Put it
that way.
>> I think some of the rulings about equal
work for equal pay are a bit weird.
>> Agreed. I think ultimately pay should be
should be done pay deals and pay
disputes should be done through sexual
bargaining and and trade unions. I think
having judges decide this stuff is quite
dangerous. having judges. So the the the
weird one was Next, wasn't it? So they
had that Next were paying their
warehouse staff more than their front of
house staff.
>> Yeah.
>> And the warehouse staff was slightly
more male than the front of house staff,
which was slightly more female. And a
judge decided that these were equal
jobs. And so therefore, Next was doing
wage discrimination between the sexes.
But Next literally said, "We've offered
everyone front of house a job in the
warehouse, and they don't want to take
it because it's somewhat unpleasant."
Um, and we have to pay more to the
warehouse people because the market
rates for warehouse people, warehouse
workers is more than the market rates
for shop people, people who work in
shops and they still sort of sued them
loads of money. And it's one of the
reasons why Birmingham went bankrupt.
One of the reasons, not the
>> Well, Birmingham didn't actually go
bankrupt, but that's a that's a story
for another day.