Harriet Harman: you can’t trust the Roman Catholic Church
The Church of England must be making considerable progress - in her eyes.
And the Conservative Party must be an unending source of inspiration to her.
“I don’t agree with all-male leaderships,” she said. “Men cannot be left to run things on their own. I think it’s a thoroughly bad thing to have a men-only leadership.”
Well, tell that to Jesus.
If Harriet Harman were a man saying this of women, she would be pilloried to kingdom come.
And yet, Cranmer thinks she has a point.
There is much empirical evidence to support her assertion that ‘you can't trust men in power’. There is the whole of history for a start, which is replete with examples since time immemorial of man’s propensity to untrustworthiness in the exercise of power - temporal and spiritual. They have been proven time and again to be venal, corrupt, deceitful and war-mongering.
But this is not a quality of manhood; it is an attribute of power.
The king and the queen, the emperor and empress, the lord and the lady, the priest and the nun - all have shown themselves to be perfectly capable of the most disghusting excesses and the most inhuman and perverted of abuses.
Power corrupts whether exercised by men or women, though perhaps it corrupts more when comingled with testosterone, which some women posses more than others.
And if one needs evidence of its corrupting effect on the fairer sex, one only has to examine the career of Harriet Harman herself. She has skilfully manipulated her way almost to the top (and, Lord Mandelson permitting, she may yet get there), riding roughshod over those who have stood in her way and by attempting to change the rules to ensure that her gender is favoured irrespective of merit.
She clearly has a problem with men, possibly as a result of a neglectful or abusive father and/or an untrusting or overbearing mother. One cannot make laws or govern a country on the basis of psychological projection.
O, hang on...
But if leadership is not male, a fortiori is it not able-bodied, heterosexual or Caucasian.
And who says it should be human?
For is not that a little specie-ist?
If Harriet Harman’s quest for equality were to reach its logical endgame, the next Labour government (God forbid) would be an anti-meritocratic oligarchical construct consisting of: a man and a woman; a disabled man and a disabled woman; a homosexual and a lesbian; a disabled homosexual and a disabled lesbian; a black/Asian man and a black/Asian woman; a black/Asian disabled homosexual and a black/Asian disabled lesbian.
And an ape.
Or a dog or a rat.
Or is this the Conservative Party’s preferred list of candidates?
One-legged Asian lesbians have a secure future in politics, whichever party is in power.
But it is to be hoped that they might also know a thing or two about defence, foreign affairs, health or education.