In another universe Harriet Harman's insistence that there be a woman in the Labour leadership contest would be regarded as outright sexism. I guess the thinking is that if there isn't a woman in the running, it can only be because society is patriarchal and sexist. Maybe she has a point, but I'm not convinced that reverse sexism (or racism or any ism) is somehow nobler, or that it helps the cause its proponents are trying to further. In fact, I think that often, the opposite is true.
Anyhoo. Diane Abbott's name may have come up, but what sane strategist would want her as the Labour leader? The party's corrupt and discredited and swinging so hard to the left that necks are cricking, and Diane Abbott is the politician who sent her son to private school and then said:
"Private schools prop up the class system in society.
"It is inconsistent, to put it mildly, for someone who believes in a fairer and more egalitarian society to send their child to a fee-paying school."
But, she added: "I had to choose between my reputation as a politician and my son."
Which is to say, she's a hypocrite, and as much as some people respect her for being honest, she would be nothing but a liability for the Labour party.
(PS. given the school thing, Harriet Harman is also a hypocrite for nominating Abbott. Yet I notice in the article above that Harriet Harman's kid got shipped off to an Orpington grammar school as well, making her an extra strength hypocrite. Given what they preach, how do these people stay elected?)