After the weekend's headlines trumpeting Harriet Harman's view that in a woman has to hold one of the top two Labour Party jobs, a thought struck me.
How did she vote in the 1994 leadership/deputy leadership elections? My Labour sources reckon she may well have voted Blair/Prescott. If she did, that means she's either a hypocrite, or that the
experience of Blair and Prescott leading the party turned her off men as leaders. I've tried to find it on the internet and been unable to do so, but someone will know.
I can't imagine she deviated from the moderniser line by backing Margaret Beckett...
33 comments:
Why bother? she's too thick-skinned. You could discover the full set of Carry On films in Harriet's video collection and she'd still bang on about the evils of sexism and any other 'ism you'd care to mention.
She's like the terminator. Nothing will stop her.
Harman has only recently come out with this idea that a woman has to hold one of the two senior Labour party positions. Maybe she only formulated it last month.
Voting for two men in 1994 does not, therefore, prove she is a hypocrite. It merely proves that it took her some time to come up with this ludicrous suggestion.
Who gives a monkeys what she did in 1994? Why is she NOT being prosecuted for publicly making apparently sexist and defamatory remarks?
That's the question you should be asking.
I don't think 'changing your mind' is hypocrisy, although at least that would make Cameron even more of a hypocrite with the reveal of his comments about tax in recessions.
She's not a hypocrite, she's just bonkers and the only people actually benefitting from Harriet Harman's garbage are the Conservative Party - who must gain a 100 votes every time she open her mouth.
The damned woman is an affront to masculinity. But we won't let her win, she'll not nail our balls to the wall!
Also, during the 2007 deputy leadership election, she said she would have given her vote to Jon Cruddas if she had not been standing. This would also have led to an all man leadership team.
Hawkeye, precisely.
Besides, has she not grasped the fact that 50% of the voting populace is male? Or does she have that covered, too?
I liked what Edwina Curry said in the times today re Harman. Sorry don't know how to link it , but I guess as you are a well educated man , you will have read said article anyway.
@ Anon 8:10 PM
"I don't think 'changing your mind' is hypocrisy"
Does this woman actually possess such a thing? It's not evident at all.
I was reading that Harriet Harman is the most powerful woman politician since Margaret Thatcher.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Its time she read Orwell´s "Notes on Nationalism".
Harriet Harman voted for Blair/Beckett in 1994. The votes of Labour MPs were public.
Perhaps she should follow the example of this woman in the US
"A California attorney has decided that President Obama is ineligible to be president, and has taken on the mission of removing him from office — by force, if necessary. On at least two occasions, she has openly called for armed rebellion by the military, to arrest and imprison the elected President."
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/orly-taitz-complaint-to-the-state-bar-of-california/
Talking to an avid NuLab friend of mine, I was interested in his reaction to Harriet. When we suggested she was as mad as a box of frogs, he leapt to her defence and said that she was politically very astute and far better than Gordon Brown (described as useless)as a leader of the Party. This guy is well connected in the London/SE Labour scene so I assume that Hattie's campaign is running strongly in London during Gordon's absence. Who cares what she thought in the past - now she has the smell of power in her nostrils you can bet that her past record will never be uncovered.
Power corrupts, absolute power means you think you can do anything you want....Planet Harman...what a place!!
Nine months and counting!
Then Labour will barely muster a shadow cabinet, ghosts don't have shadows so I'm told, and the spectre of Harriet will thus be quite irrelevantaphies
Who did you vote for as deputy leader in 1994? And if it wasn't Margaret Beckett, the woman candidate, why not? ART MORGAN, London E8
I voted for Margaret Beckett.
From You ask the Questions - 16/10/06http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/harriet-harman-you-ask-the-questions-420267.html
I read her wikipedia entry which is heavily referenced and looks pretty reliable (for wikipedia).
You couldn't make up a scarier, madder more deluded character if you were writing up a part for an evil pantomime dame.
Still, I am delighted that she is destroying militant feminisim. Perhaps we might have a properly equal society where we have equivalent rights rather than equal rights.
Nobody should really worry about Mad Hattie, she's just an Upper class tw(i)t. A psychotic Upper class twit I admit, but she's essentially harmless because we can laugh at her ,in very much the same way we laugh at the BNP.
I think Edwina Currie was a more powerful woman in politics than Hattie
She was also voted off the Shadow Cabinet in 1993 (along with Ann Clwyd) following a cencerted campaign from Labour Researchers (I was one) because of the way she treated her staff. Someone talk to Leo McKinstry about it.
Harriet Harman brings humour to the Labour Cabinet. We can laugh at her but simply feel scorn for Brown. She is Comic Relief in The Scottish Play
The Minister leading on Equality wants to introduce inequality.
So new Labour.
But she shouldnt worry. If Labour Party membership continues to collapse at the current rate soon it will just her and Gordon holding the Party Conference in a phone box in Blackpool.
Now there's an image to conjour with.
For the voters' response to Harman's comments just have a read of the comments on the BBC's "Have your say" piece. Almost to a man (so to speak), readers condemn her stupidity, sexism and clear lack of judgment. These aren't political blog hacks, just ordinary voters...
Racially-motivated crime is overwhelmingly (70%) carried out by black or Asian men.
Can we expect Batty Hatty to sound off on this, next?
She is turning into a sort of female Wedgwood Benn: she's getting madder as she gets older and only the left can't see it.
Harman is a salutary lesson in the ability of ideologues to delude themselves.
She is so invested in identity politics that she is convinced that she is representing her whole gender, that her whole gender stands behind her and that, for all women, gender is not their main source of self-identification but their only one.
She honestly, honestly believes that 99% of women are on her side and that she speaks to their needs and desires. She is similarly convinced that she, and all women, are the victims of a patriarchal conspiracy designed to keep them down.
Now I come to think on it, it isn't just ideology about which she is deluded. She's also deluded about her own merits.
My question is
"Why are you still stealing oxygen?"
@Uncle Bob
Wouldn't mind seeing hairmen nailing balls to the wall
She might be barking but I bet she`s still up for a bit of doggy!!!!!!!!!
She's a dangerous monomaniac, happy to dumb us all down if that is what it takes to make us all equal. You'd be pushed to make her up, but there she is, another utterly incompetent minister way out of her depth.
like all left liberals she must hate men for a reason.
can anybody find out what has triggered this?
relationship with father? cheated on?
Harriet Harman's Lies About Rape Exposed Today
http://www.harrietharmansucks.com
Post a Comment