ANDY Burnham has been dubbed Labour’s “first woman prime minister”.
The astonishing comment was made by a senior party source while speaking to The Spectator .
It gets worse. No matter how bad you think the explanation for how it could possibly be that Burnham, a man, will become Labour’s first female PM, what was actually said is even more outrageous.
Burnham, we are told, is “Labour’s first woman prime minister” because of he is “genuinely passionate” about “female-oriented issues”. That is, for our enlightened Labour source, in contrast to manly stuff like “bombs and budgets”.
Here’s the full quote in all its glory: “The reason Labour have always craved, but also been cautious about, a female leader is because, in a Labour government, she could have an unashamedly female agenda, focused on health, education, family finances and issues like safer streets, social care, online safety for kids, that are disproportionately important to women.
“[This would be] unlike the Tories’ female leaders, who are under internal pressure – and the weight of history – to show how tough they are on traditionally male issues.
“Along comes Andy, surrounded by female advisers and backers, but more importantly, genuinely passionate about all those traditionally female-oriented issues, and much less so with the bombs and budgets. So could we finally see what Labour has failed to deliver all these years – a female PM in all but sex?”
There are many things deeply concerning with this rant. Firstly, the question is raised: Have Labour never had a female PM because they think women’s brains are incapable of grasping “the bombs and budgets”?
Another, more immediately pressing concern is raised: Will Britain’s likely next prime minister, the man who gets access to the nuclear codes, also not be that bothered about “the bombs and budgets”? That would be suboptimal, to say the least.
