Category Archives: Harriet Harman

Kevin Maguire is right

Posted on May 4, 2009 | 4 Comments

I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with the Mirror’s usually uncritical Labour cheerleader, Kevin Maguire, before, but, to my chagrin, I concur with every word of his latest blog post.

Or perhaps he agrees with mine of yesterday.  

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Labour Party

Tagged

Two ringing denials

Posted on May 4, 2009 | 5 Comments

harriet-harman1Harriet Harman has just appeared on Today, back-pedalling like fury, and denying absolutely that she cherishes any personal leadership ambitions whatever – even if Alan Johnson throws his hat in the ring.  We’ll see.

She also  asserted, remarkably firmly and apparently seriously, that there was unity within the party.

When it was put to her by a quizzical John Humphrys that Hazel Blears’s Observer piece was hardly a ringing endorsement for Gordon Brown, Harman replied that Blears had denied that ringingly, too.

Today’s Guardian reports the terms of Blears’s “ringing denial”:

Blears said her description of a “lamentable” failure by the government to get its message across had been an attack on all of her colleagues, not just Brown.

I’m sure that will go down really well around the cabinet table.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Alan Johnson, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears, Labour Party

Tagged

Helpful Harriet

Posted on May 3, 2009 | 2 Comments

harriet-harmanIt’s turning out to be another eventful holiday weekend for Gordon Brown.

Just as Easter was dominated by the McBride affair, so the May Day bank holiday – surely a time, if ever there was one, for Socialist unity – is being taken over by Labour infighting that has now spread from the back benches to the cabinet itself.

Hazel Blears’s helpful Observer critique of Brown’s performance forced Alan Johnson and Jack Straw to ride to their leader’s aid this afternoon, both denying any personal ambition and pronouncing Gordon the individual supremely equipped to lead the country out of the economic morass in which it flounders.   

Now Harriet Harman, according to the Telegraph, has upped the ante by letting it be known that if Brown is persuaded to step down or is challenged by Johnson or Straw, she will not stand aside and allow an orderly succession, but will enter the fray herself.

In a perverse way, this may prove of assistance to Brown.  The last thing Labour need, twelve months out from a general election, is a lengthy leadership election that focuses prolonged attention on the party’s internal divisions.

That’s the logic, but the reality may be very different.  Labour’s mood is highly febrile and no attempt is being made to conceal the disarray within the party.  Projections such as this won’t improve matters, either.  Some members of the Parliamentary party may take the view that they have little to lose and possibly much to gain by trying to get rid of Gordon. 

If that happens, it will be a very bloody summer.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Alan Johnson, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears, Jack Straw, Labour Party

Tagged

Pips squeaking

Posted on April 22, 2009 | Leave a comment

There was a time, not so long ago, when I used to feel quite sorry for Alistair Darling.  Here was a man who had acceded to one of the great offices of state, only to find that he was little more than a puppet, his strings pulled by the great puppet-master next door. 

His personal authority was virtually nil.  He was in office, but not in control of his powerful department.  That remained the fiefdom of its former incumbent.

However, over the months since Gordon’s anointment, it has become increasingly clear that Darling is now entirely reconciled to his surrogate status.  Indeed, he appears almost at peace with it, his demeanour being one of impassive,  Zen-like calm. 

Today, he stood at the dispatch box, utterly composed, reading out a list of figures so terrible, so thoroughly frightful, that they would have engendered the severest anxiety in anyone unable to achieve the state of nirvana that Alistair has attained:

Our own figures for public sector net borrowing will be £175 billion this year, or some 12 per cent. of GDP. From 2010, as the economy starts to recover, and the measures announced in November and today take effect, borrowing will fall to £173 billion, then £140 billion, £118 billion, and then £97 billion. As a share of GDP, our borrowing will be 11.9 per cent. of GDP next year, and then, as we move towards balance, 9.1 per cent. in 2011-12, then 7.2 per cent., and then 5.5 per cent. in 2013-14.

This was way, way beyond anything that anyone had anticipated, infinitely worse than the projections Darling announced only last November.  And, indeed, the rest of his speech was full of such appalling statistics that Members were left gasping.

There was, as I anticipated, something small for pensioners and, yes, some funny business with tax credits.  But there was little cheer for Labour.  No fiscal stimulus, because Mervyn King had put a stop to it.  Virtually no giveaways.  Just bad, bad news, for the country as a whole, and particularly for the Labour backbenchers. 

They sat mostly silent and unanimated, save for the briefest of visceral, tribal cheers when Darling announced the 50p tax rate on incomes over £150,000.  Harriet Harman’s face creased into a vindictive and incongruous smile at that point.

But she shouldn’t have been so pleased.  Her colleague had just confirmed that Labour had not abolished boom and bust and had broken a key election pledge.  The economy, it was now known beyond doubt, had been trashed by her own party: damaged so badly that it will take the best part of a generation to repair.  Jobs are disappearing by the thousand daily.  Businesses are folding.  Lives are being ruined.

And yet she, too, in her own strange way, was happy.  Alistair had just confirmed the death of New Labour.  Class warfare was reopened.  The red flag had been hoisted.  The pips would squeak again.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Alistair Darling, economy, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman

Tagged

Sticking to the script

Posted on March 25, 2009 | Leave a comment

speedoHarriet Harman stood in for Gordon Brown once again today at PMQs.  This is becoming an increasingly frequent occurrence, as a consequence of the Prime Minister’s equally frequent absences abroad.  No doubt things will calm down after the G20. 

William Hague again deputised for David Cameron.  He pressed the leader of the House repeatedly on the issue of whether or not she agreed with Mervyn King’s bleak assessment of the economy, but answer came there none, Harriet preferring to bang on about the Conservative inheritance tax proposals. 

William persevered, in his inimitable way:

Mr. Hague: The question was about the Governor of the Bank of England. I know that inheritance may preoccupy the niece of the Countess of Longford, but it is no good attacking our policy, which is to reward people who have saved hard and worked hard all their life, and which, when we announced it, the Government tried to copy. Let us be very clear what the Governor of the Bank of England said:

“I think the fiscal position in the UK is not one where we could…engage in another significant round of fiscal expansion”.

The question to the Leader of the House today is whether she agrees with the Governor of the Bank of England-yes or no?

No joy, however; Harriet was reading from a script and sticking rigidly to her lines.  She had been told to deflect the attack by going on ad nauseam about IHT and, dammit, that was exactly what she was going to do. 

William, however, had the funniest line of the day, which left Members on both sides chuckling:

Mr. Hague: My party called for a national loan guarantee scheme all the way back in November and the Government have dithered about it ever since. They are all over the place. The Prime Minister is on his way to Chile. The Business Secretary has just arrived in Brazil. Should he not be implementing those schemes instead of unpacking his Speedos on a Latin American beach?

“ Speedos”.   Bullseye, William.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, William Hague

Tagged

Sheepish answer

Posted on March 4, 2009 | 1 Comment

Prime Minister’s Questions, and I had been drawn sixth in the ballot – a position which normally would have assured me of being called. 

Unfortunately, Harriet Harman was deputising, in the absence of the Prime Minister in Washington, and her answers tend to be, shall we say, comprehensive.  As a consequence, I was not called until 12.30. 

I had wanted to go on the Goodwin pension saga, but Vince Cable covered it fairly comprehensively.  I therefore decided to raise the issue of compulsory electronic tagging of sheep, which is likely to inflict enormous damage on the Welsh farming industry: 

Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): The right hon. and learned Lady will be aware that electronic identification of sheep will become mandatory for all animals born after 31 December this year. Does she share the view of the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the cost of complying with those rules outweighs the benefits? Does she recognise that those costs may well force many thousands of British farms out of the industry, and will she urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to apply whatever pressure it can to the EU to drop this ridiculous and unnecessary legislation? 

Harriet looked bemused.

Ms Harman: I know that identification of sheep is very important as part of infection control. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is a serious issue. Therefore, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him on the issue.

Most helpful. 

Not a lot of sheep in Camberwell.  Or Peckham, for that matter.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Harriet Harman

Tagged

Change of tack?

Posted on March 2, 2009 | 2 Comments

An interview Alistair Darling has given to the Telegraph appears to  signal a change in strategy on the part of the Government – or at least some elements of it. 

In it, Darling acknowledges that the Government has failed in its regulation of the banking sector:

“There are a lot of lessons to be learnt by regulators, governments, all of us.

“The key thing that went wrong was that a culture was allowed to develop over the last 15 years or so where the relationship between what people did and what they got went way out of alignment, especially at the top end.

“If there is a fault, it is our collective responsibility. All of us have to have the humility to accept that over the last few years, things got out of alignment.”

It looks like the Government now accepts that the electorate haven’t bought the “global crisis” line that Gordon Brown had been spinning for the past nine months or so and has decided instead  to try apology and humility as a way of attempting to make its peace.

Darling also appears to rule out changing the law to recover Fred Goodwin’s pension fund and  to accept that the money may, indeed, be irrecoverable – directly contradicting  Harriet Harman, who adopted a far more bellicose stance in her Andrew Marr Show interview yesterday.

The Telegraph suggests that the pressure is now on Gordon Brown “to offer an apology for his role in the financial meltdown during a visit to Washington this week.”

If such an uncharacteristic thing were to happen, it would be fascinating indeed and proof positive that Labour has decided on a complete change of tack.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman

Tagged

Harriet’s kite

Posted on March 2, 2009 | 1 Comment

harmanHarriet Harman has made a most interesting intervention in the affair of Fred’s wedge.

Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday, Ms Harman said:

 “To get a severance payment when you’ve led a bank to the brink of collapse with record losses and thousands of people fearing for their jobs and requiring the public to step in with loans to back up the bank, that is a matter of public interest now and the Prime Minister has said that that is unacceptable.

 “The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it’s not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that’s where the Government steps in.”

 The first paragraph of Harman’s pronouncement is unimpeachably correct.  It’s the second paragraph that’s a bit problematic.  Putting aside the gloriously New Labour phrase “court of public opinion” (shades of “people’s princess” there), one must ask: how precisely is the Government going to step in?

 Notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s spluttterings about “legal action”, most lawyers I have spoken to take the view that a contract is a contract, and unless something seriously untoward, and as yet undisclosed, happened, the Government is, sadly, stuck with it.  Which is why someone really ought to be resigning.

 Of course, primary legislation could be used to reverse the pay-off, but that would be a pretty draconian step and would also set a disturbing precedent.  It would imply, effectively, that whenever the Government entered into an ill-judged legal arrangement, it could undo the damage simply by trooping its parliamentarians through the lobbies.   Such a course of action would do nothing for the confidence of anyone intending to deal commercially with HMG, particularly at this difficult time.

 Harriet Harman is, of course, Leader of the House, so would be in the best position to know if the Government is indeed intending to table an appropriate Bill. 

 However, given that No. 10 is apparently “distancing itself” from the suggestion that it intends to pursue the legislative course, it would appear that the PM prefers to await the advice of m’learned friends and that Harriet – for whatever reason, and I’m sure with helpful intent  - was just flying a kite.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman

Tagged ,

Last Questions

Posted on December 17, 2008 | Leave a comment
Harriet Harman deputised for Gordon Brown at PMQs today, in the absence of the Prime Minister in Iraq.

The last Questions of the year were a relatively muted affair, with the dark cloud of the economy weighing heavily over the House. Even William Hague, who stood in for David Cameron, seemed quieter than usual, but that may possibly have been because the Labour deputy leader was at rather less than top form, fluffing her answers and sometimes seeming to search for her words.

The one seasonal note of the session was struck by William, in a question about Government spending announcements:

Mr. Hague: Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that, of the £158 million announced today to help unemployed people, £58 million has been taken from another programme that is already supposed to help train people? The other £100 million is exactly what she announced two months ago, the last time that she and I did Prime Minister’s questions. That money has been announced before, which means that this is a reannouncement of a reannouncement—at Christmas time we are not meant to get only repeats, but that is all that we are getting from the Government today.

A small joke, but enough to cause David Miliband to crease his vaguely simian features into a grin and jovially dig his front bench neighbour, Paul Murphy, in the ribs.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in David Miliband, Harriet Harman, Paul Murphy, William Hague

Big constitutional principles

Posted on December 1, 2008 | 5 Comments
The issue of the arrest of Damian Green and the police’s entry into Parliament continues to gather momentum.

The Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, has stopped short – just – of condemning the police action, but has acknowledged that “big constitutional principles” are at stake and called upon the Speaker to review the processes by which authority is given to enter the Palace of Westminster.

Jacqui Smith, by contrast, still doesn’t appear to understand just how big the constitutional principles are, continuing to assert the need for “police operational independence”.

Scotland Yard, however, does seem to have begun to appreciate the enormity of what has happened. According to the Telegraph:

Some senior ranked officers at the Met and outside the force are “baffled” and “deeply worried” by the decision to launch an official investigation into the complaint made by the Cabinet Office, and said that they would be “amazed” if a criminal conviction was secured.

The Telegraph continues:

A senior source said: “If leaks threaten to cause damage to the state, in the sense of official secrets or national security, then of course they should be investigated as a criminal offence. However if the leaks are damaging to the serving government, that should be a matter for them to sort out, rather than the police.”

And that, of course, is the point. What has happened to Damian Green looks very much like a witch-hunt inspired by Government anger at the release of entirely correct information which has proven embarrassing. But the Opposition doesn’t exist to spare the Government’s blushes; it is there to keep them on their toes, which, to an extent at least, is what the Press exists for, too.

At the moment, the police and senior civil servants are carrying the can for last Thursday’s cack-handed operation. Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary deny that they had any prior knowledge of the raid (which, to say the very least, puts Jacqui Smith’s degree of control of her Department in serious doubt).

And I believe them, really I do. Every word of it.

Because if it were to turn out that they were aware of what had been planned, it wouldn’t just be a question of their resignation; it would be the end of this Government.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Damian Green, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith

Politician-speak

Posted on November 14, 2008 | 5 Comments
Yesterday, when asked in Business Questions about the death of Baby P, the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, said:

“What is so terribly tragic about the case of Baby P, the baby in Haringey killed by his parents, is not only that a baby should have been killed in such horrible circumstances, but that there appear to have been up to 60 missed opportunities to save that baby’s life. There were 60 occasions when the family and the baby were seen by social workers, police and health professionals, which is why everyone finds this case so particularly tragic. We all want to ensure that lessons are learned.”

The last, throwaway sentence of that response is classic New Labour. The full formula is: “We must learn the lessons and move on”.

I don’t believe for a moment that Harriet Harman is, or intended to appear, uncaring, but that is the impression that the “learn the lessons” mantra conveys.

In the case of Haringey, we don’t simply want to ensure that lessons are learned, because they were learned in the hardest possible way after the equally appalling death of Victoria Climbié eight years ago.

What we actually want to do is, if necessary, close down the council’s dysfunctional social services department and ensure that those responsible for this disgraceful episode, by their actions or failures, never have charge of the welfare of children again. We want to deal with those who didn’t learn the lessons.

What we also want is to see that those whose failures may be considered to be criminal are prosecuted and, if convicted, punished.

And yes, of course, we want to see better practices and professional standards established in Haringey and in every other social services department in the country.

Harriet Harman yesterday resorted to politician-speak. I don’t blame her for that particularly, because we all do it, some more often than others. I freely admit that I do it myself.

But we should all be aware that using shorthand expressions can give the impression that the speaker is not taking the issue in question seriously, but rather viewing it as a political problem that needs to be addressed and overcome.

Nothing does more to undermine the confidence of the electorate in those engaged in public life.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Haringey, Harriet Harman

Tagged

Going up

Posted on October 15, 2008 | Leave a comment
Harriet Harman’s performance in PMQs today was, frankly, dire and generally obfuscatory.

However, she did let one cat out of the bag:

Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the money that has been invested in the banks will not be at the expense of investment in public services? People such as pensioners, parents with children in schools, patients of the NHS and public sector workers will be concerned that the money that we have invested to rescue the country from the excesses of the masters of the universe must not come at the expense of those services. Can she give that assurance?

Ms Harman: I can give that assurance. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that it is important that we carry on with crucial public investment, and the uprating of benefits and pensions will happen in the normal way.

So there we have it. Public spending will continue unabated.

Taxes are going to go up.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in economy, Harriet Harman

Midnight Oil

Posted on June 5, 2008 | 2 Comments
The Government has shelved plans to complete the passage of the Planning Bill next Monday. I have a particular interest in the decision, since I am speaking on the Bill from the front bench with my colleague Jacqui Lait, the shadow Planning minister.

It is pretty clear that the decision has been prompted by fear of a Labour rebellion that would result in a defeat for the Government on one of its flagship Bills. Indeed, the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, admitted in Business Questions today that the Government is in negotiation with its backbenchers in an attempt to stave off trouble:

“On Second Reading, a number of hon. Members from all parts of the House raised concerns about the Bill. Further, there have been meetings between Ministers and hon. Members. With the Minister who is responsible for the Bill, I too have met the Chairs of various Select Committees who are concerned about the processes involved in the Bill.

“It is only right that if hon. Members, including Chairs of Select Committees, raise questions about a piece of Government legislation, the appropriate thing to do is to reflect on what changes might need to be made. Without arranging it formally, the Bill will probably come back to the House the week after next, probably on Monday 23 June.”

So it looks like I’ll have a quieter weekend than I anticipated; I thought it was going to be written off in preparation for the second day of Report.

However, any relief will be more than offset by the massive additional work generated by the reams of amendments that the Government will doubtless table before 23 June. I anticipate much burning of midnight oil.

Whether the Government can make enough concessions to appease the rebels remains to be seen. Short of abandoning the IPC, it’s hard to see what will placate them.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Harriet Harman, Planning Bill

Hostilities declared

Posted on May 23, 2008 | Leave a comment
As it turns out, it looks like Labour have decided not to wait until the weekend before commencing their internecine hostilities. Several senior party figures have already started briefing viciously against Gordon Brown.

On this morning’s Today programme, Nick Robinson reported that one Cabinet minister had told him, referring to Gordon’s Stalinist tendencies, “Gordon Brown cannot say we now need another five-year tractor plan.”

Another minister, referring to the party’s collapse under the leadership of Michael Foot, said, “We bottled the decision to remove our leader then; will we bottle it again now?”

Poor Harriet Harman was put up this morning to get the ritual post-election kicking from the broadcast media. On BBC TV’s Breakfast she took a pasting from Susanna Reid, but that was scant preparation for the out-and-out mauling she received at the hands of John Humphrys on Today. It will be a long time before she gets over that one.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Labour Party

Not Bad at All

Posted on April 2, 2008 | 2 Comments
Actually, she wasn’t bad, and no, she didn’t wear a stab-proof vest.

William Hague, deputising for David Cameron, welcomed Harriet Harman to her place and pointed out that she was the first female Labour MP to answer Prime Minister’s Questions, following in the proud tradition of Margaret Thatcher, whose name, he remarked, was revered both on our side of the House and by the Prime Minister.

Harriet was a bit prickly in response. She asked why Theresa May, her shadow as Leader of the House, wasn’t leading for the Opposition. She wagged her finger at Theresa, and told her that she shouldn’t let William get away with it.

William seemed genuinely hurt at her crabbiness. He had tried to be nice to her, he really had. Given that she didn’t appear to want to reciprocate, however, perhaps she could tell the House more about her choice of dress. She had mentioned to the Mail that she tried to dress appropriately to the occasion; did she therefore dress as a clown when attending cabinet meetings?

Alan Johnson whispered in Harriet’s ear and she nodded. No, she said, and she wasn’t going to take sartorial lessons from “the man in the baseball cap”.

So far, so good, but it didn’t get any better for her. She was shaky on detail and nowhere near as well briefed as Gordon. She didn’t reply to any of the substantive points raised by William, which were, essentially, on the rising cost of living and the increasing tax burden.

And then she mentioned her blog. Not only did she mention it, but referred to its section titled “Harriet in the High Street”. And immediately, visibly, regretted doing so. The House roared, and the words “flak jacket” echoed around the chamber. Even the Labour benches laughed.

By 12.30, she seemed exhausted and anxious to get the whole business over and done with. She thought she was out of the wood when she answered an easy question from a Labour member, John Spellar, about free buss passes.

And then, at 12.31, the Speaker called Peter Bottomley. Peter Bottomley is no mug. The exchange went as follows:

Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): When the Government changed the emphasis from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, were they aware that their new choice of index would be substantially lower than the higher one? What does the Leader of the House have to say to the pensioners who suffer because of it?

Ms Harman: I will ask the Chancellor to write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

What the Hansard record doesn’t convey are the ums, the ers, the heavenward-rolled eyes and the general blowed-if-I-know vibes Harriet gave off at that point.

But, still, she wasn’t bad. Not bad at all.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Harriet Harman, Peter Bottomley, William Hague