What’s good enough for the Labour leader (as well as the Fabians and the bulk of Young Labour) is “sexist” according to the Labour Students’ paid officers. To the extent that they will break their own constitution to avoid debating it.
In any event, roles are already gender balanced by the constitution.
That’s the definition of a questionable motivation and a silly and undemocratic reason to break the organisation. An accountable and contestable leadership is a serious deficiency which makes an alternative organisation worth considering.
Given how their arguments against the same system to be used to elect the Party leader are clearly disingenuous, and actually arguments *for* room packing, the status quo, might it be that there are reasons they might not want members to vote directly on who runs them?
Room-packing elections should be a thing of the past and are bad for developing young people. They are not worth being ‘neutral’ on. Good on this lot for fighting and not being shoved into swallowing it.