The Labour Party: Patronising Paternalism

The more I think about Diane Abbott's elevation to the status of Labour leadership candidate, the more it bothers me.

They'll be some who treat this as a triumphant breakthrough for women (despite the Tories having had a female Prime Minister decades before the Labour party allowed Abbott onto their ballot paper) and for ethnic minorities. We have a black female candidate for the Labour leadership. What a mighthy step forward.

Except, of course, it is not. Because Abbott's elevation to the status of real-life Labour leadership contender has next to nothing to do with her ethnicity, her gender, or her ability. The reason why she is being able to run for Labour leader is because an aging white man dropped out of the contest, and because a middle-aged, middle-class white male decided to nominate her.

And why did Miliband Major effectively let her into the race? Sure, to make the leadership contest look more diverse in part. But also because he - and the other candidates - just don't see her as a threat. In many ways, it is easier for Miliband Major - and the other three - to have Abbott in the race than it is to exclude her. For all their talk of having a wider debate, this looks like tokenism - they have a black, female candidate, so there can pay lip service to a very nebulous idea of inclusion as they canter towards crowning a middle class, middle of the road white male as Labour leader.

I have no doubt - not a shred of doubt - that the Labour party will promote Abbott's presence on the ballot paper as proof that they are progressive. That is, of course, utter shite. As this action shows, the reality is that they are the party of smug, patronising paternalism.