I read the Times today and thought I was back in the nineteenth century.
In an opinion piece about the Labour leadership line-up, a female journalist (Rachel Sylvester) writes the following:
Whoever wins the leadership risks the fate of William Hague in 1997 – unless he can reach out to normal people.
As Labour Party members vote in the leadership contest, are they choosing a future Prime Minister or a man who will only ever be leader of the Opposition? It's too early to write off the next Labour leader - whoever he is - just yet.
May I remind Rachel Sylvester that we have one female candidate and she hasn’t lost yet.
Throughout history, society has assumed that leaders would be male, and they have been. Now, we have potential female leaders, but they are treated as invisible.
Ironically, it is this 'invisible woman' who scooped Rachel Sylvester with the Hague point. She told the Labour List website last Friday that the Tories made the mistake of choosing Lady Thatcher's 'heir' - William Hague - as their leader in 1997.