The choice of candidates

After a weekend lazing around, I discover, via Uncle Constantly and Mark Reckons, that John Prescott is having a go at Harriet Harperson. She said

One of Labour's top two posts should always be held by a woman, Deputy Leader Harriet Harman has told a paper.

She does "not agree with all-male leaderships" because men "cannot be left to run things on their own" she told the Sunday Times.

A balanced team of men and women make "better decisions," she added.

The MP reportedly tried to change the party's rules to ensure a female was always in a top job shortly after winning the deputy leadership contest.

and he said

"Quotes like this just raise leadership issues once again just at a time when we should all be pulling together.."

"Success doesn't come from saying all male leaderships are bad"

"Why take away from the party the right to choose its leaders on the basis of ability?"

"In theory you were elected on merit, not your gender.."

This kind of Labour party/government prattling rather ignores one very important salient fact. The Labour party could barely find more than one candidate to have a leadership election at all.

Except for Gordon Brown, they couldn't find any other men or any women to nominate as leader

Gender was irrelevant.

There were no women who wanted to run for leader.