The news that Andy Burnham is self-identifying as a woman came as something of a shock. But it turns out he isn’t.
A senior Labour source has pointed out that “Andy, surrounded by female advisers and backers”, had a passion for “female-orientated issues, and much less so with the bombs and budgets”.
Not only this, but he would be Labour’s first female prime minister in “all but sex”. The heat is driving all Westminster stooges even more bats–t than usual. In “all but sex” is key here. Women care about health and education, but not defence and the economy, apparently. Remind me, what year are we in?
Still, if Burnham is worried about gender optics, there is a solution – hire one to look after the cash. For it is a truth universally acknowledged that a man in possession of the Labour Party must be in want of a female chancellor.
Apologies, Jane Austen didn’t quite say that. But anyone who has been around the Labour Party knows that they cannot bring themselves to have a woman leader. So they need to ship in some woman – any woman – for the big job. Or otherwise, you know, it all looks too blokey.
Burnham is aware of this, so he has been bigging up the “band of strong, Northern power women” at his post-Makerfield victory rally – those women being Louise Haigh, Grace Pritchard and Anneliese Midgley. One must not mess with them, apparently, or you will get into a scrap.
No stereotypes there then! The selfie of him after his swearing in at Westminster, surrounded by various female MPs, reminded me of the Tony Blair babes photo (but then that reminded me of a Hugh Hefner picture, so not good).
My main point is that it would not matter so much if there were proper jobs for the girls. Keir Starmer was certainly stymied by a perception of the boys’ club running his administration. Peter Mandelson’s friendship with a paedophile was deemed acceptable until it wasn’t. Everyone already knew about the victims, but hey, they were just collateral when the prize was shmoozing Donald Trump. The blindness of the boys’ club to all this was simply astonishing.
Burnham may do empathy and navy T-shirts, but there has to be some substance here. The suggestion that he will be a “female PM” simply because he is interested in things like health and education is ridiculous.
He has already brought in one of his football mates – James Purnell, a Blairite lobbyist, who has rubbed many up the wrong way and is not loved by the Left of the party. Now, he has to up his game, and that means bringing together different factions of the party and putting women in key jobs. Shabana Mahmood is the obvious choice for chancellor because she is tough enough to make the welfare reforms that need to be made, but she may not want to move from the Home Office.
Yvette Cooper would be capable, but dull, and would not frighten the horses. Meg Hillier, chairman of the Treasury, and Yuan Yang, an economist and MP for Earley and Woodley, are also impressive, although sadly too inexperienced to be chancellor.
When it comes to the men, Wes Streeting is a talent and needs to come back. And frankly, anyone would be better than James Murray, the Health Secretary. Why not replace him with Angela Rayner, who remains ever-popular within the party and is certainly Northern enough?
He should bring in some Left-wingers, too. Miatta Fahnbulleh, an MP and economist, is very impressive. He should surprise us with some unexpected appointments. Maybe even some people who have had jobs outside politics?
When it comes to women’s rights, though, I don’t trust Burnham one little bit. He has, ironically, flip-flopped on self-ID, as his gender-obsessed party has struggled to gain a grip on the definition of biological sex. Yet it seems to me that when the chips are down, he knows exactly what a woman is.
It is someone who stands behind him in group shots, but can never lead the party he has taken over.