Sunday, November 07, 2010

The Shamelessness of Harriet Harman

Harriet Harman has always had a brazen cheek but today it got to better of her. She seriously suggests that David Cameron should force Andy Coulson to stand down from his job on the basis that he has been interviewed by Police over the hacking affair. Let us remind ourselves, lest we forget, that Mr Coulson has not been arrested or charged with anything and was not interviewed under caution.

This from the same woman who saw absolutely nothing wrong with her new leader bringing Phil Woolas onto his front bench while facing an Election Court with the power to ban him from Parliament - which it duly did.

And by Harman's logic, Tony Blair should have stood down after being interviewed by Police over cash for honours.

The woman is shameless. Totally shameless.

18 comments:

Andrew said...

Furthermore, Harriet didn't consider resigning even after she was convicted of various motoring offences. Whereas Andy Coulson hasn't been accused of having committed any offence, she is a convicted criminal.

Unsworth said...

Harman has always relied on the failure of memory - short and long term - of the British People. That and the complicity of the media, notably the BBC of course.

Jared Gaites said...

You're all as bad as each other - including you mate. Spin, lies deception and waffle, and you are one of the worse. She may be shameless in that she does in fact seem to be prepared to say anything to suit, but she also has a point about Coulson which of course is your job to spin as best as you can and go into attack mode. You all make my stomach turn.

Jess The Dog said...

"Convicted criminal Harriet Harman". Has a nice ring to it. Where is her master anyway, or is her hand up his backside?

Whatever Coulson's sins, and as a tabloid editor he is unlikely to be pure, they pale into comparison beside those of his notorious predecessor in Number 10, who was tolerated and encouraged until the bitter end....and who is mysteriously quiet of late, presumably anticipating a return to the Chilcot inquiry in the New Year.

Bill Quango MP said...

"- because it is not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected."

So says the wife of the winning candidate on the safe seat's all woman shortlist selection, Jack Dromey.

You can use all the Canesten Combi you want Hattie, but that burning sensation is caused by your knickers actually being on fire.

trevorsden said...

Well yes she is, but I continue to point out that Labour really do think that we are all as thick as two short planks.

Red Rag said...

I hope the Coulson disgrace just keeps rumbling and rumbling. The longer it goes on the more idiotic people like yourself and Cameron will look when he either resigns or gets the boot.

Though I am sure you will be able to find a spin line which will show how it was correct to defend a man who is as pure as driven snow.

Martin said...

So the BBC are bigging this Coulson story up again Iain, but when you're on the BBC you NEVER highlight the left wing bias. Why not? Are you frightened of being banned from the BBC like Tim Walker was 9for taking the piss out of the useless one eyed idiot on the BBC paper reviews)

Jonathan said...

She utterly disowns Woolas even with no new evidence but the judgement of a couple of unelected judges. Indeed David Miliband had Woolas on his key backers list. Woolas' diary and election artwork damned him to anyone of any decency regardless of electoral law.

Now they disown him like the 90 internment not because they have changed just to get elected.

My main incredulity is where they got off with their [Labour] morality. Even on cuts they planned Housing Benefit cut and the John Browne education review was theirs. They've nothing but rhetoric and any position to get elected.

And I'm on the left.

James Cleverly said...

Not shameless, clueless.

killemallletgodsortemout said...

Hypocrisy.

It's what Labour do.....all the time.

Jess The Dog said...

I've little time for the tabloid media and the professional spinners endemic in politics. But Coulson did resign, as Screws editor, over all of this. And, if the Screws were plundering mobile phones, so were the other tabloids, so they should all be damned together.

Coulson will go if charged with an offence, and will stay otherwise, until caught out in whatever dark arts have been retained from the Labour era. Perhaps he is a useful lightning conductor.

Mirtha Tidville said...

"- because it is not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected

Now that is rich, even by Mad Hatties usually low standards. It just goes to prove they never have been and never will be fit to rule......

M said...

The Labour party are in a very large glass house and should not throw stones judging by this storyhttp://newsnetscotland.com/politics/928-labour-and-the-smear-gone-wrong-

cherami said...

Oh, just let Harman go. She is an irrelevant shill and within the next year or so will simply disappear.

cherami said...

PS What is it with Cameron and Coulson? Why not just let the creep go as Blair should have let Campbell go.

Philip Lingard said...

Sure Harman is a muppet but this Coulson thing is frightening.

Can the Murdoch establishment completely suppress it? Doubt it.

Got a feeling the Aitken sword of truth moment is going to come distressingly early for this administration unless some distance is created between Cameron and Coulson pretty quickly.

Coulson's competence will work against him here- if there is so much as one NotW phone bug which people have not already served time for, would anyone seriously believe Coulson did not know about it???

Unsworth said...

@ Jonathan

"a couple of unelected judges"

OK, so what? Judges have been unelected in this country for centuries. Anyway, how would you go about determining electoral suitability of those in the legal profession? Would you take the same view of the appointments of actuaries, consultant surgeons, barristers, Dons, Generals, Admirals etc?

Woolas was found guilty according to the law - under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act (1983). Perhaps you believe that MPs should not be subject to the law, then. If so, why was this Act not repealed by the Labour government when they had the opportunity?