We don't all adore the Daily Mail

I've rather lost track of who said what, did what, supported what, opposed what and all the rest in the National Council for Civil Liberties. But one thing has become rather clear - with some exceptions nearly everyone on the right is siding with the Daily Mail and nearly everyone on the left is siding with Harriet Harman. That's not exactly the best circumstances to determine the truth of the matter.

But not everybody on the right is actually a great fan of the Daily Mail - that's no secret but it's not so well known. Often the paper's editorial line leaves many of us annoyed and frustrated. Frequently its fire is unhelpful and sometimes it's turned on the right. But worse still many of its columnists spread vile unnecessarily. I've heard many things said about the paper by my friends of the left (and those who think they're on the left) but I've heard worse things from fellow righties.

As the issue itself, it needs to be considered dispassionately and not through an automatic filter of one's pre-existing view about the Daily Mail, Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt or Liberty.

Are we on course for another 1931?

The headline in the Daily Telegraph today says "Brown's lost it, say ministers - Prime Minister is heading for poll defeat on scale of John Major's, warn senior Cabinet figures". Some seem to fear an even bigger defeat.

Could we be on course for a landslide election like that of 1931? In that election the results were: National Government 556, Labour 52, Independent Liberals 4, Irish Nationalists 2, Independent 1. Or to put it in a bar chart:

I think it's a little fanciful that things could get this bad, but for much of the current Parliament I've been sceptical about all the polls, being scared they're too good to be true.

Still things could be even worse for Labour. In the 1993 Canadian election the governing party went from having a majority to winning a mere two constituencies.

And if that doesn't frighten Labour enough, the two surviving MPs comprised one new member and the party's deputy leader. Are Labour members prepared to cry "Hail Harman! Leader of all you survey; nothing!"?

And I thought the Meacher bid was the biggest joke...

Harriet Harman for Labour Prime Minister?

Yes I know. Can we all stop howling with laughter?

Luke's Blog: Collective Responsibility notes the current noises emerging from the Harman camp and worries that Harman could become the Labour leader should a vacancy arise.

I don't think he's got anything to worry about. Harman only scraped victory in the Labour Deputy Leadership election through an appeal to sexism, arguing that she should hold the post just because she's a woman. And after all she was running to fill John Prescott's shoes and was in many ways perfectly qualified - see Yet another (deputy) leadership election.

Are even Labour Party members blind to the hopelessness of Harman to elect her as their next leader? Labour MPs clearly aren't and she won't be able to bank on an unopposed shot. I think Luke is over worried about this one and we can relegate her dreams to the joke bin of British politics, where also was found the bid by Michael Meacher!

Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Sometimes I wonder if John Bercow is a mole sent to undermine causes from within. Then I wonder if he even knows what cause he's pushing for.

Bercow has written the astonishing piece Where is the Tory Harriet Harman? for The Guardian. There's not much to send Conservatives into a greater spasm of anger than "an article in The Guardian" but "Harriet Harman" is the nuclear option. Exactly why we need an upper-class anti-equality hopeless partisan is beyond me.

But for those who can get past that, Bercow is reiterating the call once again for the party to adopt all-women and all-black or minority ethnic shortlists. With many seats having all ready selected (and some having picked candidates for two term strategies) it's an odd time to be raising this.

And I have to wonder if something isn't getting lost in this debate. Is the aim to simply get more women and black & minority ethic people into Parliament or is it to create a level playing field in which neither is an impediment to being selected? And I am not naive to believe that there is no bias in the current selection process, though I believe things have been getting better in recent years and that if the Conservatives had done a lot better in the last election the proportions in the parliamentary party would be different.

There is something absolutely nobody argues for. It is called the "compulsory all-men shortlist". It can still happen but rarely (recently one Conservative selection wound up with only women on the final shortlist out of their own merit, not because it was imposed; I can't remember the last all-male shortlist). But nobody wants to bring it in because they rightly accept that it would reinforce the existing bias.

And yet there is a real danger that all-women shortlists will have this effect. If for instance one of a pair of associations in an area were to have an all-women shortlist imposed upon it, what would be the effect on a women's chance of being selected in the other seat? I believe it would decrease the chances. For people would feel that men would have a more limited chance and so would boost them. "Open" seats would rapidly become regarded as "male" seats because some women would instead be on the shortlist for the AWS seat, whilst those who did go for the open seat would be up against demands for "balance" locally. When the language of statistical exactitude is used to justify positive discrimination it is very hard to argue against it being used to justify discrimination in the other direction.

And this is before we even get into the thornier area of all-BME shortlists, a description that crudely assumes the BME population of this country is homogeneous and that representation could be easily apportioned out. And then would all-BME shortlists be used across the country or would they only apply to certain parts? Would Adam Afriyie have been selected for Windsor if all-BME shortlists were in existence or would he instead have been expected to go for a far less winnable seat with a shortlist?

Surely the real goal must be to break down barriers in open selection, not try to match discrimination with discrimination? Equality of opportunity will, I admit, take longer to achieve but it is by far the better goal for the long term. Equality of outcome breeds resentment but also risks ghettoisation.

Harriet Harman's rubbish memory

I'm just watching Prime Minister's Questions and Harriet Harman has attacked the Conservatives for having questions asked by the Senior Member of the Shadow Cabinet not the Shadow Leader of the House.

If Harriet Harman cares to remember when Labour were last in opposition (perhaps not given how pilloried she was by her own side), she will recall that when Tony Blair didn't do Prime Minister's Questions, it wasn't Ann Taylor but John Prescott who stood in for him. Was Harriet Harman complaining then? Or is she so incompetent she thinks the world began in May 1997?

Bring back John Prescott!

Strange coincidence

I've just turned on the TV to find a rerun of Little Britain with a scene where the Prime Minister is under pressure over a scandal involving huge donations to his party. Coincidence or what?!

Mind you Sebastian Love was meant to be a parody of Peter Mandelson. I can't think of an obvious present day equivalent, even if Harriet Harman seems to be routinely appointed to office despite being in an equally untenable position.

The Harman impact bounce

I've long thought that "Harriet" is one of the loveliest female names going. So it's a pity that the most prominent person in politics with that name - in fact the only politician I can think of - is so awful.

And it seems I'm not alone in thinking this. Two of my favourite Labour blogs are also deeply sceptical that Harman's election has been wise - see Kerron Cross: You Are Joking, Right? and Mars Hill: Harriet the Deputy.

Of course one can ask if the post means anything - see my past post Is the Labour Deputy Leadership worth a pitcher of warm piss? Certainly Harman is qualified in some respects to succeed John Prescott - as I wrote over a year ago in Yet another (deputy) leadership election:

...I initially laughed.

But on reflection Harman is being stripped of key ministerial responsibilities, prone to making silly gaffes, has hit the headlines for her driving activities, can generate fierce political storms and is considered by some to be ignorant.

Would she really be such an unthinkable choice to step into John Prescott's shoes?

She's also been made Labour Party Chairman, or whatever the position is titled, and Gordon Brown will no doubt expect her to buck up her act - no more writing to Conservative councillors to ask them to support Labour politicians! (Where does New Labour find these ministers?!?!)

The big losers are the Old Labour Left. I don't mean the John McDonnells but rather those who John Prescott has spent the last thirteen years keeping happy with the New Labour Project. Now Old Labour has no voice at the top. This could be the beginning of the long expected fracture.

And Labour call this a dream ticket?!?!

Labour have elected as their Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. No I am not joking. (BBC News: Harman wins deputy leader contest)

Clearly the party has forgiven her for grammar schools, for being a weak Cabinet minister, for being a craven Brownite, for not even being able to remember who the Prime Minister is. And her speech was typical of the woman. Alongside Big Clunking Fists we have Little Rubber Fingers, unable to lay a blow.

This Brown/Harman ticket is less balanced than an anchor. Clearly Labour aren't serious about winning the next election.

Commiserations to Alan Johnson who cam so close to winning - he would have been my second choice. On my one meeting with the man when he was Higher Education Minister I found him refreshingly frank and reasonable. He is one of the best parts of this Cabinet and I hope he keeps a good post in Brown's government.

Where does New Labour find these ministers?!?!

From Iain Dale's Diary: Now it's Harriet Harman's Turn for a Gaffe. She's written to the leader of Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Cllr. Brian Silvester, asking him for his support in her quest to become Labour's Deputy Leader. But Silvester is a Conservative!

Just why does she think she is well qualified for this non-position?

John Prescott is not irreplaceable

Both nicola and Iain Dale have commented on the big story today that Alan Johnson is "interested" in becoming Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. The none too subtle message is that "John Prescott can be completely replaced". Given that Prescott has demonstrated a complete inability to extract himself from newspaper frontpages over the last month it's not surprising that many are writing him off for good.

Assuming that whoever succeeds Prescott as Deputy Leader becomes Deputy Prime Minister as well, I have to say I'd prefer Johnson over Prescott continuing or for that matter Harriet "who actually is the Prime Minister?" Harman (though frankly it's clear even she doesn't see herself as a serious contender in a competitive field). A few years ago I met Johnson when he was Minister for Higher Education and he proved to be one of the best Labour ministers I've met. The country would be safer in his hands in Tony Blair's absence than it is in Prescott's.

Harman and the Brownites get desperate

Harriet Harman has declared that the next Labour Deputy leader must be a woman. She has made similar calls before so I don't think this is motivated by a desire to avoid a repeat of John Prescott's recent affairs. But in view of her past hints that she will run for the Deputy Leadership it's pretty clear which woman she has in mind. Since so many in Not So Very New Labour take Old Man Brown's succession to the leadership for granted one must wonder if she's concerned as much with gender balance (apparently not - according to Labour Watch she's calling for there to be two deputies but only with a minimum of one female, not one of each) as with political imbalance. There are few obvious non-Brownite women who would be strong candidates otherwise, but many men. Harman would be hopeless (some might say I could stop the sentence right there - remember when she didn't know who her own Prime Minister is?) against them. And in light of the famous row over candidate selection in Blaenau Gwent, will the ordinary party members stand for this either? Without a real leadership contest (since the Labour Party is so lacking in talent) a properly contested Deputy Leadership election is the nearest substitute. The members haven't had the chance to confirm Blair's leadership for years, it looks doubtful they'd get much say about a Brown leadership, they have no real way to express a formal verdict in Prescott and now Harman seeks to deny them this. Why can't Labour have a full contest and see if a woman will be elected? It worked for Margaret Beckett.

Yet another (deputy) leadership election

Iain Dale comments on the story that Harriet Harman will run to be Deputy Leader under Old Man Brown. Like Iain I initially laughed.

But on reflection Harman is being stripped of key ministerial responsibilities, prone to making silly gaffes, has hit the headlines for her driving activities, can generate fierce political storms and is considered by some to be ignorant.

Would she really be such an unthinkable choice to step into John Prescott's shoes?