Just rhetoric

Harriet Harman made a very interesting statement this morning, in arguing that the now imfamous Sir Fred Goodwin £650 million pension was going to be stopped at any cost, Labour's deputy leader is quoted telling Andrew Marr: ""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." This surely has significant implications. What Ms Harman suggests is that it does not matter what laws exist, if the public is opposed then such laws will be over-ridden by the government. Perhaps actually it suggests that laws will be over-ridden if it does not suit the government's position of the time. Ok, one could ask why any law should exist that does not have broad public support and perhaps agree that a mandated government should be the highest arbiter of what should or should not be legal. All the same it is an interesting statement that could be simply rhetorical or reflect the Obama style of having the public put pressure on various bodies (in the US their representatives) to get the desired results or suggest the government seeks to be led rather than them leading.

What Honeymoon?

It is common for a new Prime Minister to be given a honeymoon period, where the media and public opinion show support for them. While weekend polls suggested Labour had gained a halo effect, the BBC appear to have launched an anti-Brown/Harman offensive even before they take up their new roles.

Last night's Panorama was an investigation into Brown record on spin. It wasn't exactly revealing or new, just collected little bits of evidence from across ten years to show he was as media-obsessed as Blair, depict him as competitive in gaining positive media coverage, and importantly quite prepared to lie publicly when asked if he was aware that Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone had donated a large sum of money to the party. This all raised serious doubts about the extent to which Brown would usher in a new style of open government that would listen to the people.

This followed on from the grilling Harriet Harman received on the Today programme concerning whether she had agreed, during the Newsnight hustings, that the party should apologise for the Iraq War. She did, yes I checked, say she agreed when Cruddas said the party should apologise but now claims "What I've said is I actually voted for the war on the basis that there were weapons of mass destruction and I was wrong on that... How many times can I say it? I haven't asked anybody else to do anything - I've just explained what my position is." Will all this lead into a back story that argues this government is illegitimate and needs a public mandate? It seems likely that Brown is to get a hard ride and face significant scrutiny over the next months and may well be driven to the early election whether it was in his mind or not. Good for democracy in some ways, but should the media undermine a new Prime Minister in this way, it may be a popular approach for some but it sets a dangerous precedent where any new government could find itself undermined from day zero.

a 'NET' loss

I found Labourhome this afternoon, Labour's answer to Conservative Home a forum "for blogs, discussion and debate in which supporters can meet and consider issues of common concern and interest outside the party", set up early June I think. Now here is a good example of a why David Phillips is absolutely right when he argues that anything posted anywhere on the web can later be potentially embarrasing (all Facebook users particualrly beware!). Browsing the archives I found a beauty!

Commenting on Harriet Harman's Newsnight performance, JR makes a statement that could easily be used by Labour's or Harman's opponents to undermine the party's next election campaign. Perhaps said at a time when her victory seemed slim and of course it could be seen as fair comment; but the implications... The full text is below:

by far the biggest shambles of the night was Harriet Harman. After desperately clinging on to her Cabinet position for all these years, now Blair is going, she decided to stab him in the back and reject all the principles which she herself had backed for a decade. Amnesty for illegal immigrants? Taxing the David Beckhams of the world until their hair stands on end? Going on about people buying £10,000 handbags? She's lost the plot. So Harriet, tell me, by denying somebody the right to spend their hard-earned money as they choose, why does that make the poor better off? Hitting the rich will not improve the lives of the poor - it simply gets peoples backs up that deluded government ministers are attacking them for wanting to earn a good wage and wanting the freedom to spend it how they see fit. She seems to be on a one-woman mission to kill Blairism and everything that New Labour has built up in it's decade of success. It's not an unfair comment to say that she even outflanked Cruddas on leftieness, so much so that even Cruddas himself couldn't help but lavish praise on her. And of course, then we had the charade where she quickly tried to change her second-preference to Cruddas in order to scoop up more leftie votes, but she couldn't quite manage it because she still wants to make out she can win us votes in the middle-class South. Sorry Harriet, but you've failed there spectacularly. No self-respecting middle-class family would give their votes to a party that espoused your views.

At the start of this campaign, I originally considered giving my vote to Harman as she seemed pleasant, was generally loyal to Blair and was moderate enough to win us the middle England votes. She's destroyed all that and now she's going second-bottom after Cruddas. Congratulations Harriet Harman, you've managed to scare stiff about half the British population into thinking Labour is going back to the Michael Foot era - I'm sure that's really going to help come election time against Cameron's 'heirs to Blair'.

Dream Team 2009/10

Dream Team 1992

Dream Team 1997

Dream Team 2009/10

Against all the odds it seems, and only because of the second preferences on the Cruddas ballot papers, Harriet Harman pipped Alan Johnson to be elected as Labour's Deputy Leader. Reports indicate that her popularity is highest among the parliamentary party and members but not the Unions or it seems the broader public [though this pairign offers a neutral outcome when balancing out those who would vote for the two and those who would not, 15% either way]. She has positioned herself as a loyalist but with an element of independence, emphasised her long-time commitment as a campaigner against gender inequality and soemone who is pledged to focus on the next election. Interestignly a Yougov poll conducted in May suggested that "Harman beat all her competitors on recognition, being trustworthy, being in touch with family life and, crucially, on making people more likely to vote Labour"; somethign she has promoted ever since on the front page of her website. Perhaps today's respnse is an indication that she may be the best known but that few know a great deal about any of tyhe candidates, as the next election could easily be as far away as May 2009 and the Brown government has until May 2010, Harman has time to make her mark and increase her profile and popularity; perhaps emphasising the qualities the May poll perceived her as possessing. Personally, I wonder how central her Facebook group, website and blog become to her communication.