While the cat's away...

the knives are out and MP's are already planning to replace their leadership, they expect to loose the next general election but they think they are safe enough to attack their leader and ready themselves for his job.
nothing new there then, but how many will still be standing as elected MP's after a general election?.
from now on the backstabbing and wars of words have already begun, these MP.s are showing their true colours so would any right thinking voter of this country vote for them, it may be wise to vote for a bunch of chimps they may well behave better.

The labour party is in such turmoil now they should voluntarily go into a period of opposition until they can sort themselves out and let us all know what they really stand for.

How can they run a country in chaos when they can't even run themselves?

First of all they need to establish who is leading them because we don't know anymore.

good old harriet ,the best recruiting sargeant the tories could have.keep on spouting hattie!

oh the rape issue , well if they kept all the rapists, peodo's and murders for life to start with when convicted then she could start to talk.

many will remenber Craig Sweeney on the M4 a few years ago, think the bady was only 6 months old, yet he had been in jail and should have been kept there but Nulabour policy let him out FACT.

but the fact is they want headline policy that is only lipstick deep.

Is seem that with HH equality only cuts one way and that is the cynical way to try and win votes

Is hattie harperson the MP for "BARKING"

But HH is not interested in due process of law and order. If innocent people are sent to jail to fill here qouta's that is fine by HH.

Much like the children of the forced adoption policy of Blair that was quitely dropped last year. Ring fencing monies to councils to improve the adoption figures, no matter the impact on the familes involved.

But when its all done in secret in the family courts no one will ever no the true facts then will they and the PM and gov agencies will never be brought to account.

But in about 50 years time when it all comes out long after those that can sue are dead the Current PM will make appologies etc.

lets hope that this time it comes out on there watch.

But this would need the BBC to report the issues

Nice to see a new face. Welcome to cut-throat corner.

Bit odd, really. I can't get excited about the disclosure that Ministers can't agree about a new initiative. In fact, it seems peculiar that t is "news" when government doesn't announce something.

Since Parliament is in a long recess, there amyway wouldn't be any progress to strengthen the legal or regulatory framework so that more reported rapes would be examined in such a way that more prosecutions would succeed.

Funnily, even when government DOES announce something, it's normally the prelude to a piece of badly cobbled together piece of legislation, poorly-thought through follow up procedures and money dripping down the drain.

Given that, increasingly, crime of all sorts is not reported because the police and courts can't even cope with that which is recorded, it seems strange to keep increasing the regulatory activity.

I'm all in favour of stopping the brutal crime of rape and punishing the perpetrators. But I'm also in favour of not seeing young ladies slayed out completely legless on the pavement and wondering whether anything happened to them.

Sadly, Harriet H seems to be focused on very wimmin-centric politics. I wonder how much fuss she actually made when Gordon was creating an economic disaster-zone since 2000 - with the blessing of Blair?

Just to say you spelt 'to' wrong in the 5th paragraph, it should be 'to' not 'too' - get your act together BBC

Harriet Harman is the worst thing for the true cause for "equality" since Adolf Hitler. She is a self-confessed feminist which, although might help her in her role as women's minister, is clearly (to anyone who refuses to be brainwashed and bullied by Political-Correctness) a conflict of interests.

Her recent statements about the "need" to have a woman in one of the two top government jobs is yet more proof of this conflict of interests. I wonder, if we had a female prime-minister, would Ms Harman be bleating on about the "need" to have a man in one of the top two jobs? Somehow, I think there's more chance of you seeing her working as a stripper in Soho.

New Labour have absolutely ruined the cause for true equality. True equality would mean you judge someone by what they do, not who or what they are. Unfortunately, Ms Harman seems to think that to achieve true equality, you have to discriminate against certain groups. I still fail to see how anyone in their right mind can actually agree to this unless, of course. they stand to benefit from this discrimination.

Remember this, Ms Harman, to force equality is to break equality. Your idea of equality is more like equality-on-acid.

Hattie really epitomises all that is wrong with New Labour and their unequal approach to equality.

It shows appalling judgement that as Minister for Women and Equality, Hattie sees nothing wrong with making insulting remarks about men.

One wonders, if there is a genuine need for a Minister for Women (which is doubtful), why is there no Minster for Men? Where's the equality in that?

Hattie's suggestion of reserving a seat at the top table for someone just for being a woman is yet another example of political correctness out of control.

More women in politics? Certainly!
More women like Hattie? Certainly not!

Mandelson has no right to be there let alone push himself in for yet another caretaker prime minister candidacy.

Harriet Harperson seems to upset a lot of people with her profound remarks.

Does she mean we HAVE to have a woman prime minister even if there is a better man for the job? Hmmmm. Bit of discrimination there then. Men don't know whether they are on foot or horseback nowadays - and I am a woman saying that.

The thing with Hattie is, despite having an extremely well connected and highly educated background, she tries to speak "mockney" when she thinks the occasion calls for it, ie at the run down area where there was a fatal fire in a block of London flats recently.

I don't trust anybody who runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds. She should not pretend to be anybody other than who she is.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

That's fascinating. I submitted comments when the new blog was still appearing under the Nick R name. That seems to have disappeared when it switched to Laura's. (Or maybe it was just killed off, with no trace.)

Main point was that I don't really see the "news" value in the fact that Ministers can't agree on the terms of a review. "Government doesn't proclaim new initiative" has a fairly hollow ring.

Though, I suppose, in a way, I'd be quite happy to have a statement that Q"Government pledges NOT to announce initiatives for 3 months", would be really good news.

Trouble is that the Westminster watchers pick up on a tsunami of announcements, which are refined into initiatives, which eventually deliver poorly drafted laws or regulations, within inadequate procedural back-up and often not as much real money as that "committed".

I'm in favour of convicting rapists. And a rather harder servitude regime.

But I'm also in favour of not seeing ladies, splay-legged and totally plastered on the pavement, who have no idea whether something may have happened. As well as some genuine punitive regime (and no early release) for perpetrators.

Harriet H blathers on about how wimmin would get things right. Is there any evidence to support her opposition to Gordon's economic policy since 2000 (which her mate Tony B allowed), to try and prevent the ravishing of the UK economy? I didn't notice her resigning...

Welcome Laura.

Your incisive reporting during 'smeargate' was brilliant - far better than anything, lets say, more prominent people in the political reporting hierarchy of the Beeb ever came up with. And this very well written blog post too shows you have a far deeper and incisive grasp of the issues and their implications than they ever have!

Plus we need more women reporting politics!

You should get your own permanent blog!

There is no way she could even run a whelk stall,even with her bloated departmental budget and legions of marxist minions.
Zanulab are a zombie party just waiting to have their mushy heads stove in by the electorate.

#9 we did have a woman PM lady T , but that was not HH's idea of the women that she wanted to be PM they have to fit her image and ideals

so it is only certain women for PM for HH

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#14 wecome Laura too

agree with all that you say #14

perhaps Laura you can do a piece on eqaulity and the family Courts
Ms HH has been very vocal to oppose equilty in the Family Courts.

And by that I mean fathers and extended family having equal/shared access and asperations for their children as those of the mothers , or is this an area where HH wants to preserve this as a woman only sphere of influence ? perversly excluding the fathers mother (ie a grandmother)

Now that is a article that you could become famous for.

Peter Mandelson was recently made First Secretary of State which is effectly Deputy PM, this makes Mandelson number 2 after Gordon Brown. It is strangely surprising how Harriet Harman considers herself number 2 when she does not actually make any decision or in charge of any offices apart from shouting about politically correct token issues.

Now it seems Lord Drayson is close to finalising a report stating that the MOD wastes TWO AND A HALF BILLION POUNDS per annum on ill thought out procurement programs.....thats a helluva lot of money that could have been spent on body armour, armoured vehicles and helicopters.

You know what? The only place I can find any POSITIVE comments from readers about Harriet Harman are on a website dedicated to gays, lesbians, and trans-genders. I searched for about 30 minutes.

I have to say that I agree with IR35_SURVIVOR totally. Harman's ideal woman PM most definitely would not be a woman who is married to a man, has a couple of children, and who had a decent moral upbringing.

darth @ 9

She is a self-confessed feminist

what, being big on equality for women is something to be ashamed of?

Harriet Harman becomes ever more desperate in her plaintive "I AM important!" protestations.

In terms of political might, HH wouldn't even trouble the most fly of flyweights; her ranting is oddly reminiscent of Margaret Beckett's disbelief that (following John Smith's untimely death) a party which wanted her to be Deputy Leader did not want her to move on up.

If she had any real aspirations towards the top job, she would have knuckled down to her elected position as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party - eschewing any substantive role in Government - and, in good old Soviet style, she would have known where all the 'bodies' were buried, and been able to call in favours when the Great Leader moves on.

However disliked Gordon Brown is, however distrusted Lord Mandelson is, however reviled Alan Johnson is, none of the three has anything to fear from HH - she is the most disliked, distrusted and reviled member of this (possibly any) Cabinet!!!

More please, from Laura or the reporters. This is great--but its is a tiny little dribble.

Welcome Laura

We met once in Parliament Square when Harriet Harman was being investigated following the Deputy PM election. Like a poster previously, I think you are an excellent reporter - incisive I think is the word.

I am sure we will get a balanced view from you, and hopefully the subjects you cover will be those that the public wish to know about

Regarding Harriet Harman, she is to many people a vote loser for Labour. I can see very little "equality" in much of what she has proposed over the last few months. Today I was reading an article by AC Grayling that commented on the difficulty in matching idealism and outcomes. Never was this more true than in HH's approach to politics.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

2 virtualsilverlady

Who do you think is running the country?

I've read that Mandelbum is handling one part and Campbell another. While Brown is at the end of his phone, if he can find it having thrown it at someone.

So what exactly is Mrs Harman doing as Deputy PM?

Laura:

First off thanks for holding down the "fort" in the absence of Nick Robinson...

-----------------------------------
Don't worry: there's no real rift in cabinet, Vera Baird, the solicitor general tells us.

That is very good that Vera Baird is reporting to the media; But, I am skeptical of that....

~Dennis Junior~

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#22 not when its deliberatly putting down someone else.

I mention fathers and extended family right as being on a equal footing as that of the mother and her extended family ie equal.

I do not seek to usurp one over the other and thats the fundamental difference, between HH and myself.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#20 hum , most of that is caused by politician huming and aring to try and save money with industry being pushed from piler to post trying to keep up with the changing demands or lack of commitement to a project
say the Carriers all the delays will have cost millions as you have a marching arm of engineers that you have to keep on the books or face losing them for ever and then not being able to build such vessels.

The real problem with the MOD is that there is no Industrial, strategic, economic or military vision of what is required unlike say france whom go there own european way with Rafeale rather than join the EFA(thypoon)
because they want the jobs and technology in there control etc.

what we have to wake up to is that freedom (from many and including USA)
comes at a price. Do some reaserch on TSR2, it goes a long way back.

Harman, with every word she utters makes it more likely that we will never see another Labour Party voted into office for a very long time.

The very reason New Labour was a success was because it moved from leftwing policies to centre ground, Harman will take us back to the past of Michael Foot. All sensible Labour politicians know this no longer works in modern politics.

She is outdated, as women have moved on from the expectation of being handed a job just because of gender. She would be much better employed accepting the only credible candiidate for Labour leader Alan Johnson. He is the only one who will be able to connect with the public.

Harman does not work on any level, women and men in general dislike her. She does not hold her own well when interviewed and she in not in touch with the electorate in the sense of her policies, which do not address everyday problems for working people.

In time to come in my opinion, she will be seen in the same way as Germaine Greer. A lady whose ideas, society has outgrown.

Welcome Laura. You may want to get the BlogMods to change the Nick Robinson pen pic from the Latest: Reporters Blogs panel - it's a disconcerting change.

Well - if there was any remaining doubt that Harriet Harman is one ambitious politico, it's been wiped away quite vigorously. One wonders what kind of vote she is trying to shore up: militant equalitists belong in the old Labour union movement and Harman is all New Labour.

Now she wasn't allowed this much slack off the leash last summer. What's happened since then? Gordon Brown is off healing the world, one voluntary work task at a time...

...of course. Brown is off demonstrating his hair shirt wearing tendencies. Whilst Harriet throws her weight around making enemies and alienating people whilst attempting to get HER policies adapted in a very limited space of time, Gordon's stock within the labour party (and their supporters) increases so that he comes back from his holiday with freshly buffed Karma and a stronger remit. And another pretender to the throne falls by the the wayside.

For equality - TRUE equality - to happen, I'd like to believe we live in a society that is mature enough to eliminate the obstacles, not move them into somebody elses path or give someone a head start they may not deserve. Then you see the best rise to where they deserve to be.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Various posters: When you are are logged in, YOUR OWN posts appear with the name "You".

Sign out then reload the page - they will appear under your usual log in name.

Laura: Further to my original post (35), Peter Mandelson - who has also faded into the background - probably isn't doing his powerbase any harm by keeping Harman's activities at arms reach. As his remit is "Do No Harm... to the Labour Party Election Prospects" he can afford to take the long view.

Harman is a divisive character as posts on here and 'discussions' between the Labour Party elite show. If Labour are defeated at the next election and Brown quits, Harman may well be in a powerful position when it comes to the next leadership election. If she damages her support here, then the path may be open for a more "acceptable" candidate for Labour's power-broker(s). And if, by some strange sequence of events, she strengthens her reputation amongst the party and the voters; then it works out well for everyone playing the Labour Party Politics game.

Politicians being politicians..what a surprise... and talk about ambitions. Ask the bankers who they support, will end up being who the party supports. It is nice to see the folks who seem oblivious to reality. I guess the argument is: would you rather be bitten by a female or male rat.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Channel 4 news says " a secret government report concludes that billions of pounds of taxpayers' money that could have been spent on the frontline has been squandered by the Ministry of Defence.

Ministers and officials at the MOD are refusing to release the 300 page report that they themselves commissioned because it's simply too embarrassing.

One MOD insider told me it was a "damning indictment". I understand it concludes that each year between £1.5bn and £2.5bn of taxpayers' money is wasted because of incompetent procurement decisions. Put simply, the MOD is buying too much of the wrong sort of kit".

I'm still not you!


Any chance of the BBC catching up on this?

#37 LostInBlues

"Harman may well be in a powerful position when it comes to the next leadership election"

This is very unlikely because Hattie is a prime example of why people are so fed up with New Labour.

People want a change and to get away from control freakery, target culture, micromanagement and the nanny state. Even 'Political Correctness' is now ridiculed because it has proved to be highly selective and a one way street. If disparaging remarks were made about women in senior positions, similar to those made by Hattie about men, an employer would expect to be hauled before a tribunal.

After the next election, Labour will probably have to endure quite a few years in the wilderness before forgetful voters tare prepared to give them another chance.

Hopefully by then, Society as a whole will understand that true equality means people are not judged on gender, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age etc, but are appointed on their merits - nothing else.

Trying to impose quotas in the name of 'equality' is impossible. There is no such thing as 'positive discrimination'. It is simply a pernicious form of doublespeak. Any form of discrimination is unacceptable.

The fact that Hattie doesn't get it shows that she is unsuitable for office.

#34, Susan-Croft:

"Harman, with every word she utters makes it more likely that we will never see another Labour Party voted into office for a very long time."

I think that if the Tories do get back into power - and that is a very big IF for as long as Call me Dave remains at the helm; the Party grandees should be ushering Cameron to one side in preference to (Mekon-lookalike) William Hague - that will be sufficient to ensure Labour success at the following election.

Far too many people have forgotten what Tory administration is truly like, and the move away from short tit-for-tat Government durations (each undoing the work of the previous administration before doing anything of substance) in the 1960s/70s has served the country very poorly.

Harman is an electoral liability; a statement (from HH) that she will UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES seek to be Prime Minister, even if she was to become Party Leader - a role which should be a full-time job in itself - would do wonders for the Party's chances next February.

February? Well, a little bird.....

#44, DistantTraveller:

"The fact that Hattie doesn't get it shows that she is unsuitable for office."

.. but eminently suitable (in photographic form) for pasting over the face of a dartboard!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

45

"Far too many people have forgotten what Tory administration is truly like.."

=========

Whereas everyone can experience for themselves the reality of Brown's Britain, and the progresive consensus seems to be that the government are simply not up to the job.

Morning Laura And fairly There you are i though you were all on summer vacation ,Foot note leave Harriet alone she is shoring up the prims position and with all the gaffs will guarantee nu lab our stays out of office for a very long time along with the cabin boy ,And all theses other woman mps they add to the very core of what constitutes as a good government ? Well for a little longer anyway.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

22. At 7:21pm on 05 Aug 2009, sagamix wrote:
darth @ 9

She is a self-confessed feminist

what, being big on equality for women is something to be ashamed of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the problem saga she is only " big " on equality in ONE direction

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Indeed it is the silly season in politics where silly comments from a rather silly woman are given more prominence than they are due.

For an alledged champion of equality Harwomans' (can hardy persist with the Harperson tag since she is clearly not proposing equality) comments show she really does not understand one word of any of the principles she propounds.

Equality is about equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. Positive discrimination as she is reportedly proposing is a recipe for disaster, it engrains the very discrimination she proclaims to abhor because it gives bigots the easy out argument that they are the ones being discriminated against and avoids them having to really think about their prejudices - they no longer have to justify their bigotry but can claim to be the oppressed minority/majority.

Two wrongs do not make a right a long and still true adage.

Whilst it obvious she is playing to a constituency in her own party and setting out a stall for the leadership battle to follow El Gordos' drubbing at the polls she is just casting herself in the role of Michaela Foot.

All she has done is prove she is not a fit person to hold high office - but then perhaps Lord M just wanted to hand her enough rope sure that she would secure it firmly to a convienient beam.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It's a little late to be posturing and sticking the knife into Gordon.

These bunch of Labour cowards had their chance to get rid of him, call an election and mitigate some of the damage to our country, but no they chose to stand by their man.
They'll get what's coming to them and if HH truly gets the top job, then Labour can say goodbye to power for 20 years.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Harriet Harman is one of 'them'. A professional politician who, like Stevie Smith's cat, gallops about doing 'good'. I have no doubt that she is both earnest and worthy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I’m really not sure what, in the law, Miss Harman thinks she should change. The problem is not the law, it is (if any problem exists at all) the attitude of investigators and jurors and the culpability they attach to alleged victims for their behaviour. If there are only two witnesses (the victim and the defendant) and no forensic evidence the principle must surely be innocent until proven guilty. As such, the word of one person is not proof of anything.

I have worked for an organisation which amasses vast amounts of data on rape allegations each day. A substantial amount of those cases are in circumstances where both parties are drunk and the issue is whether effective consent was given or not: literally the defendant’s word against the accusers. It is already a presumption in law that if the victim was unconscious through drink or so insensible as to be completely unable to give consent, that no consent was given and it is for the defendant to prove that it was. But if the victim says “I can’t remember whether I gave consent” it can hardly be just to send a man to prison on the basis that the victim might not have given consent. I really don’t see where else Miss Harman thinks the law can go, without creating a carte blanche for the not insignificant number of people out there who do make false or malicious allegations or else embellish reports of assault.

I am actually starting to feel quite sorry for Gordo. It is no wonder he throws phones and fax machines around when he is surrounded by almost complete incompetence.

An idealist feminist, a puppetmaster who spins badly, a knife sharpener and hairy browed dullard.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he comes back from holiday and justs says 'I give up!','Your majesty here are the keys'


The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct. - Cicero. Which one is Harriet I wonder?

Let's take an analogy.

Since 90% of prisoners are men there is clearly gross inequality of outcome in the Criminal Justice System.

So my modest proposal is that 50% of prisoners should be men. Judges will be given a quota system, and a new Department of Prison Gender Regulators will monitor compliance. Until equality is achieved men will be acquited more often regardless of the evidence, and women's sentences will be longer.

#57 Susan

I can sort of see where you're coming from although I've got to say I've met men who are very much the same in the workplace.... like to micromanage (probably because they're out of their depth), like to belittle colleagues of both sexes, like to play unecessary political games in the workplace, have enormous chips on their shoulders, etc, etc, etc.

However, going back to Harriet Harman, I agree with some other posts, she's positioning herself for a leadership challenge - besides she has one of the safest Labour seats in the country.

Still, why the rest of the country has to be dragged in to yet another warm-up for a Labour leadership battle is beyond me. Whilst an important issue, I don't think that male/female inequality is the main reason for the desperate situation we find ourselves in.

Without even really thinking about it, I would have to say that our overcommitment to neoliberal (in the Washington Consensus sense) economic policies are the problem plain and simple.... and that commitment was originally made by a woman!

Actually, digressing slightly, you could never refer to Margaret Thatcher as Reagan's poodle. Poor old spivvy Blair, he really was intimidated by Bush - if it was Cheney I could understand but Bush??????

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"sagamix wrote:
darth @ 9

She is a self-confessed feminist

what, being big on equality for women is something to be ashamed of?"

It depends on your approach to equality - if you feel that everyone should be given an equal chance and judged in their own merits then there is nothing to be ashamed of.

However, if you feel that the only way for women to succeed is for men to be held back then yes it is something to be ashamed of. It is an insult to women as it suggests that they are unable to make it on their own (which if a man had that attitude would be chauvinist - "the poor dears can't make it on their own so lets make it easier for them") and it is unfair on men.

Yes there are more men then women in power however why should a man who has had no control over this be prevented from reaching his own potential because of this fact?

True equality is judging everyone by their own merits and awarding positions to the best candidate.

#63 ghostworld

Yes, in principle, I agree - the law is not there to be manipulated in order to gain a more favourable conviction rate. The reasons behind the low conviction rate need to be studied and understood.

If, as you say, that a large percentage of the acquitals come from so called date rape situations (drunk male/drunk female) where it's an issue of proper consent, then there is an enormous risk that many innocents will be convicted if the emphasis is placed on the accused to prove proper consent was given.

Surely, this is more an issue of inebriation and, once again, people need to be encouraged not to be reckless. Females because they put themselves in a dangerous situation where they may or may not be raped (they won't remember properly) and males because they put themselves in a situation where they may be accused of rape and have their lives ruined. I would also suggest that this education could help you not to get beaten up on the bus or into other bad situations.

Based on her recent performances I am almost convinced that Harriet Harman is actually an undercover Tory agent :)

Everytimes she seems to open her mouth she seems to push voters away from Labour. And considering her family background the Tory party would seem to be a natural home!

Perhaps the Tories have been playing a long game as Harriet seems to be steering a ship which is already sinking onto the rocks.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Harriet Harman is unelectable in the greater country so any knife sticking she chooses to do in the absence of her Great Leader will ultimately hasten her own downfall.

Most people I have spoken to fail to understand quite what her agenda is or where she is going with it. Equality is a deep and delicate issue and needs more than a quick coat of crude policy stamped on it!

Why do we have to put up with these people fo so long. They are so far passed their sell-by date.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

71 - extremesense

I agree, i didn't really put my point across well.

I don't at all agree with Harmens proposals and think it is absurd to apply qoutas ( which appears to be the buzzword of the day)which will only result in innocent people being sent down. Furthermore the full weight of the law should come down on women who make false allegations.

The thing is that you can only educate people in the sense that you can warn them of dangers etc etc and thats all, people as individuals have to be responsible for their own actions. i don't thnik we should dictate dress sense to women, because regardless of what people wear it is still not an excuse to assume they must be up for it or were asking for it

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Re posts 9; 22; 52 & others Harriet seems to want equality on her terms and exactly what she says should go.

I agree Mrs Thatcher being a married woman with children and university educated doesn't seem to be the sort of PM Harriet wants.

This would seem to disqualify Harriet as she is married with children and was privately educated and seems to be from a highly privileged background as well as being a barrister. She also had a problem with her children getting an equal opportunities education locally like the rest of her constituents.

The problem with equality legislation as she is finding out is that many people count as disadvantaged. She moans about an OAP woman being replaced by an ethnic minority woman on Strictly Come Dancing. This redresses what might be seen as a show that reinforced racial stereotypes as it had no ethnic monority presenters or judges.

Perhaps in a truly equal world there should be two women and two men judges. In which case does Harriet suggest they sack either of the two gay foreign men or the white working class OAP?

Today my interest fell in another direction and a much more important one than dear old Harriet.

I saw this morning the healines in some of the papers on TV talking about a recovery. I do not know what these papers say because I do not have time to read them. However their duty is to inform the public not mislead them. The only reason we see any signs of recovery is because of cost cutting by business and quantitative easing. There are no signs of real recovery. Quantitative easing does not look as though it has had the desired affect, except in helping Government prop up its debt. I hear this morning the Bank Of England is thinking of printing another 25 Billion this is just plain awful, what happens when we can do this no more. The Government will no doubt want the BOE to get printing in order to service their debt, this should just buy them enough time till the coming election. This is our very last fiscal tool.

The Conservative should hope that they do not win the next election because the problems are mounting.

I see the Government is also winning the battle of making the banks enemy number one if reading Pestons blog is anything to go by. Saying that the banks are not lending enough. We must understand the Governments involvment here. The Government is demanding that the banks build up their capital by attracting investors at very low rates of return, lend at low rates and prop up bad loans, this is an impossible task.

The ones which have been taken in public ownership are asked to pay back the Government loans as well as complete the tasks above. I have always believed and always will that the Government did not bail out the banks in the right way. There was a way which would have been at very little cost to the taxpayer, but would have been much more painful for those who have acted irresponsibly and would have cost Labour votes. However I have mentioned this before and will not repeat myself.

The way forward now that those in public ownership are making such bad losses, is to break these banks up and return them to the private sector as quickly as possible under new management. Government does not know how to run banks. This in turn would put some competition back into the market. Let the bad debt fail.

78. At 10:53am on 06 Aug 2009, TheBlameGame wrote:
I find it incredulous that this gender equality debate is still going on.

But then you look at 'Prezza' and his long suffering wife and realise why.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peculiar comment .... How do you know she is/has been " Long suffering " ??

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Who is referring all these posts .... ?

Saga is it you

#65 you do not need analogy.

Just take the family courts

99.99% of those seeking a "life" with their children are men

99.99% of those that do not get a fair and eqauil outcome are men

99.99% of women make up stories for the court (ie commit purgery) to prevent access

100% of purgeers never get charge with that act


Are the facts of each case analyses NOPE they are not but some preconcieved idea that men are not fit to look after their own children
(but preversely other men have no trouble , take the bady P case and then see what happens)

An it it this Family Court Justice that HH wants to bring to the wider world.

Wake up smell the coffee everybody.

This is why there has been a high profile campain for the last 7 years.

It is the type of justice that see Murders and Peodo go free early because they can be rehabilitated etc but fathers are never given that luxury they are just prevented from seeing their children with the help of the state on the mothers side.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This is getting annoying.

There are many comments that appear on this site with which I disagree. I have never referred any such to the moderators.

If comments comform to the House Rules, what grounds are accepted for subsequent referral (which seems often to result in removal)?

I'd suggest that, if referrals take place, then the poster making such a referral should be identified. You, Moderators, know who such people may be (and the basis on which they make such referral). We don't.

If you write stuff, check whether it conforms to the rules, submit in good faith, then have it disappear for unknown reasons, it starts to create a smell...

So, trying again, with a few minor adaptations to eliminate anything which could possibly break the rules...



I instinctively don't like the idea of "quotas" to improve the mix of people in any organisation. Main issue being that there are so many "groups" within society that it's almost impossible to create a sensibly balanced legislative framework that companies would need to follow. I'm all in favour of a wide mix of backgrounds, whether of genetic chance or cultural persuasion, being involved in solving problems. (That's what businesses have to do.) But it should be the capabilities, rather than the quota, that determines that mix.

For example, I've no idea how the Labour Party decides which constituencies should have women only short-lists to select a candidate. To be "fair", you'd imagine that EVERY constituency should be put in a hat before a general election, with the "appropriate" number of seats being chosen at random. After all, as soon as you decide to limit choice to women, you've discriminated against any men who may actually be wanted by the local constituency. And the eventually successful candidate following the election is supposed to represent the complete constituency.

I've worked with and for women (and people of varying cultural backgrounds) throughout a career. Some have been excellent, challenging and good at building team effort. But some were useless and equally as rude, brusque and inclined to cliques as their stereotypical white (or other coloured) male equivalents.

I'm with Harriet in one respect. The finance institutions seemed to tolerate their staff behaving in appalling ways (and I doubt the directors would have engaged in some of their habits). But, in companies I've worked for, some of those antics would have resulted in people being fired for bringing the company into disrepute.

Right now, I'm more worried about the social environment that seems to have accepted that young ladies should behave in a similar way to lads which means a massive rise in young ladies getting involved in crime, drunkenness and generally boorish behaviour. It was hard enough trying to try and manage the young men. Now we have equal-opportunity offenders, many of whom, sadly, believe that "The Government" will look after them.

Said it before. Every child should be taught from the age of five that "The Government" doesn't pay. WE do. It's tax-payers, whether individuals or corporate, who provide the funds. So wise up, children. Nobody owes you a life. Whatever sex, race, orientation you are.


Now, what's wrong with that?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ms Harman said in the past her comments, such as on prostitution laws, had been controversial at the time but subsequently became "conventional wisdom".


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have they ??

How out of touch and more arrogant can this women get

Re 87

Nothing wrong in that at all. What you say makes perfect sense.

We have for far to long allowed the culture of "someone else will look after me" to prevail. The attitude of our young people is no longer that Hard work and effort should be the normal, they think that having a good time is more important than earning a good time.

Much of this goes back to the root of the financial crisis, easy credit. We now have a culture of fun today, work some other day to pay for it.

We need to regain the ethos that made our nation, hard work and innovation. We have lost this trait and need to regain it fast.

We need to create equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. We need a society where those who work hard are rewarded.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Allow me to suggest something that's highly unlikely. That the electorate following the media like sheep, interpret the current glimpse of green shoots as signs of a real recovery and not the mirage that it probably is. And that the electorate, because of a weak and ineffective opposition believe GB's claims that he has performed an economic miracle and vote New Labour back in, by the narrowest of squeaks.

Highly unlikely, but not impossible.

Which means that Harman's clumsy attempt at a grasp for power could scupper New Labour's one, tiny chance. At the moment when they should all be pulling together on the same rope while at the same time singing at the tops of their voices from the same hymn-sheet, she doesn't want to do that because she sees an opportunity to lead New Labour into forty years in the desert. Like Moses, but without the gravitas.

It's beneath comntempt.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

82. ghostworld wrote:
78.
I find it incredulous that this gender equality debate is still going on.

But then you look at 'Prezza' and his long suffering wife and realise why.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peculiar comment .... How do you know she is/has been " Long suffering " ??

=

ghost

Her husband's highly publicised office affair in 2006, his numerous public gaffes, him being described as a chauvinist pig by a foreign minister, having to listen to him banging on about class when she is quite clearly happy and comfortable with her lot and clearly more intelligent and politically astute than her husband... what else does the poor woman have to endure?
btw the "long-suffering" tag has been used frequently in the media to describe his wife. I didn't invent it.

I'd like to see a debate between Harman and Prescott on gender equality. It would be fun.

98

Fairplay Blamegame, had forgotten ( how could i ) about his office affair that in itself warrants your comments.

Fairlyopenmind at 98

At least you have got your correct name back....I'm still shown as "you"

back on topic... I didn't mean what I said about H at 96...
Laura says "Harriet Harman's propensity to say what she thinks " is not really true is it. She has voted many times to deny others the things she values for herself and her family..a good education for a start.
I think like a lot of Labour MPs Harriet Harman is a hypocrite.

notsosilentmajority