Historically speaking, Diane Abbott is the first black woman to stand in a leadership contest of a a major political party, and I know for many this will be a significant and wonderful thing. Cath Elliott over on the Guardian says “So what if Diane Abbott’s nomination is tokenism?” for this exact reason.

She writes:

We’ve got a predominantly white male parliament; a predominantly white male Cabinet; there are two middle-aged white men in the running for the Liberal Democrat deputy leadership, and if Abbott hadn’t made it, we’d have had four middle-aged white men in the running for the Labour party leadership. And yet despite all this evidence to the contrary, some still like to claim that we’re living in a post-feminist, women-really-can-have-it-all society now.

And so, the answer to her problem, the problem of people thinking we’re living in a “women-really-can-have-it-all” society when it’s simply not true is to create the illusion that it’s true, making everyone relax, stand down and feel that the job’s done? I don’t get it.

Because, when you really look at what happened, of all the women in the Parliamentary Labour Party only ONE had the courage to stand, and even then Diane only stood because no other women would. Why didn’t Harriet Harman stand? Why didn’t Yvette Cooper? Seriously, why did these women not even try? They’re fit enough to run Government departments, but not fit to run a political party for reals? That’s the real question that needs asking. That’s what Cath should be writing about, not celebrating this cheap stunt done in her name.

This isn’t a victory, Cath. This is you being presented with a lovely, fluffy, feel-good hand to talk to while the true macho face of Labour listens to something else.