Labour might regret allowing Long-Bailey and Rayner to be portrayed as 'sisterly' rather than 'leaderly'

Whether deliberately or inadvertently, portraying the two as sisters rather than colleagues is going to let Johnson run away with a sexist narrative

So Angela Rayner appears to have taken herself out of the Labour leadership race to stand as Rebecca Long-Bailey’s deputy. The two are already being described as the “dream ticket”, Long-Bailey having been tipped as the firm favourite to replace Corbyn, and Rayner well-liked by both the membership and electorate. Rayner’s sidestep is a calculated political move designed to secure a competitive footing in the forthcoming race – so why are many portraying it otherwise?

Rayner’s choice to step aside was described as “sisterly” by a “colleague” of the two women in The Guardian. Meanwhile, Rayner has repeatedly been reported as reluctant to compete against Long-Bailey in order to preserve their longstanding friendship. Seemingly every article about the pair mentions that they are flatmates.

It’s no secret that Long-Bailey and Rayner are close friends – many politicians are. It’s also common knowledge that the two women are members of the Shadow Cabinet and obvious front-runners in the leadership contest. Somehow, however, their electoral pact has been attributed to personal rather than political decision-making. Of course, no such framing was given to Corbyn and McDonnell’s 2015 alliance, despite the two being friends for decades. Instead, McDonnell was Corbyn’s political ally and accomplice, part of an alliance to secure a left-wing win by alternating their names on the ballot every contest.

This is testament to how, too often, women are taken less seriously than their male colleagues. Indeed, research has shown that women are less likely to be perceived as leaders, as supposed leadership qualities such as assertiveness and dominance are often gendered masculine, whereas sensitivity and concern, qualities seen to make people less capable of leading, are gendered feminine. Presenting Rayner’s decision as one of concern rather than strategy implies that she is too weak – too womanly, perhaps – to lead.

Yet for all its seeming graciousness, Rayner’s decision to deputise is highly tactical: it significantly improves both women’s chances of assuming a leadership position in Labour and of securing a win for the Labour left. It promises a much more united leadership than the tension we saw between Corbyn and Watson. It may well be what Labour needs to win the next election.

There are dangerous ramifications of this approach. The Labour “colleagues” that are, whether intentionally or inadvertently, feminising Long-Bailey and Rayner’s alliance could be shooting themselves in the foot. Long-Bailey and Rayner’s being painted as the “gal pals at the top” paves the way for Johnson to run away with a sexist narrative, one that says Labour’s little women are incapable of making the tough decisions only a strongman can. The next five years, in other words, could become a contest between women and men, rather than Tories and Labour.

Ultimately, Long-Bailey and Rayner presenting a serious threat to their Labour rivals (particularly to those who seek to wrench the party back to the centre), and indeed to their Conservative ones: a united front which, against the backdrop of a bitter and increasingly divisive politics, offers a way forward for both party and country.