Skip to main content

The Harm of Harriet Harman

Harriet Harman is a fairly typical British Labour politician. She comes from a wealthy, even aristocratic, background and was sent to St. Pauls Girls School- a private school- before studying politics at York University and joining a pressure group. She married a Labour activist- Jack Dromey- who she met on the picket line at Grunwick, but has maintained her feminist credentials in small things, such as retaining her maiden name, but betraying her Socialist credentials in large things: by sending her children to grant maintained and grammar schools, while publicly opposing the access to these institutions by others. So far, so unsurprisingly hypocritical.

As a minister she was reliably wrong on most issues: she supported keeping MPs expenses secret, she supported the Iraq war, she believes that undemocratic quotas are the best way to promote women and sexual minorities- as though they should be treated in the same way. All of this nonsense has been promoted with a straight face as a "fairness agenda". She has had her brushes with the law- speeding, and has been associated with questionable financial dealings concerning her bid for the Labour Deputy Leadership. Her husband's stewardship of Labour Party finances as Party Treasurer has also been attacked.

So far, so mediocre and slightly sleazy.

So what is it about this rather foolish, rather arrogant and rather mediocre politician that annoys so very many people in the UK?

Over the past few weeks we have seen here being abusive and disrespectful of other political figures: calling Danny Alexander a "Ginger Rodent" is not exactly the kind of right-on PC that she demands from other people. We have also seen her demonstrating the sense of entitlement and arrogance that should ultimately eliminate Labour as a political force.

By praising foreign people on benefits who send a proportion of their income back to their home countries to support their families as "heroes", she demonstrates a total ignorance of the justified anger of the British people towards a bloated welfare state that can not support this abuse. Benefits are paid by the taxpayer to provide minimum support for the needy in this country. The British tax payer already supports those in need overseas through the international development aid budget. If we are supporting the "third world" through our benefit system too, then sooner or later the system will collapse. Now, don't get me wrong here, I am perfectly happy for people in the UK to support their families overseas- with money they have earned themselves. However it is profoundly unreasonable to expect the British tax payer to be asked to do the same thing. Labour, however, would not allow foreigners who came to the UK irregularly, to work: they insisted that they should take benefits and not join the workforce.

Only a politician who has no understanding about how money is earned and wealth is created could say something so foolish. As usual, in her invincible ignorance and determined arrogance Harriet Harman shows that her view of the state is that it is a giant Santa Claus that can give every good child, and quite a few of the bad ones, a lot of sweeties whether they deserve them or not, or even whether they need them or not.

It is precisely this view of the state that has eroded British competitiveness and undermined fairness. She is not against discrimination at all- in fact she insists on it, provided it suits her social and political agenda. Her shallow vision of feminism was condemned by Erin Pizzey as a "staggering attack on men and their role in modern life".

Relevant Information: this self-regarding, poisonous, mediocrity is the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.


Tim Fenton said…
Who are these "asylum seekers on benefit"?

If you're alluding to the article in yesterday's Mail On Sunday, you will know that not even Paul Dacre's finest used that term, although they did use the word "Immigrant", even though they clearly did not know whether the people concerned were immigrants, or merely people who had relatives living in Africa.

As I've already pointed out, had any of these people put donations into a church collection plate, or otherwise given to charity, the MoS - and you - would not have raised a peep about it. But because they sent money to help relatives living in Africa, the Mos - and you - have gone off the end of the pier.

The people concerned may be working - did you bother to check? So, whether or not they are in receipt of benefits, what is wrong with some of that earned income being sent to help their relatives?

You cite no source for your post, and much of it seems merely to be an exercise in sneering and sniping at Harriet Harman, with whom you clearly have a problem.

The whole post is utterly unworthy of someone who calls themselves "Liberal" and "Democrat". It is far nastier than the MoS article, and another sad example of gratuitous demonising of the least well off - just so you can kick a political opponent.

Is this the level to which Lib Dem supporters have now sunk?
Cicero said…
Well, I might have phrased things a little better, and have edited accordingly. I support the rights of refugees, both political and as it happens economic too. Yet I think the thrust must remain the same: welfare serves a specific and very limited purpose and while I understand that people may wish to help their relatives, I would far rather that they did so as members of the work force- I think it outrageous that people coming to this country are forbidden to work, but where it is the case, then benefits should be emergency money- not, as we have been told by Labour a necessary support for the needy.

You are right I do have a problem with Harman I think she is not only usually wrong, she is extremely obnoxious about insisting her wrong opinions are in fact right.
Dilettante said…
Could you link to Erin Pizzey's views on Harman?
Newmania said…
Well it will probably worry you to learn that I am entirely in sympathy with this post which touches on what a country actually is in a way that most Liberals find difficult. (For reasons that are actually class related. )I had supposed that concepts such as tradition memory allegiance and tribal loyalty even love were as distasteful to you as they are to the usual enlightenment lovin’ rationalist. Who knew .

It is equally unreasonable ,when British people, especially the young , are suffering badly that we are borrowing £15 billion to fling around the world as aid . In fact it is breath-taking that politicians should indulge their egomaniacal hobbies at such vast expense.
There is zero popular support for the whole deluded vainglorious farce so you are still a Liberal at heart . Congrats .
The root cause of the problem is excessive immigration which you support so I am not sure your point is terribly justifiable given the Liberal paradigm of undifferentiated humanity .

PS- Harman .. Just makes me laugh.
Cicero said…
This was the article Erin Pizzey wrote for the Daily Mail, attacking Harman:

Popular posts from this blog

Trump and Brexit are the Pearl Harbor and the Fall of Singapore in Russia's Hybrid war against the West.

In December 1941, Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor. After the subsequent declaration of war, within three days, the Japanese had sunk the British warships, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, and the rapid Japanese attack led to the surrender of Hong Kong on Christmas Day 1941 and the fall of Singapore only two months after Pearl Harbor. These were the opening blows in the long war of the Pacific that cost over 30,000,000 lives and was only ended with the detonations above Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"History doesn't often repeat itself, but it rhymes" is an aphorism attributed to Mark Twain, and in a way it seems quite appropriate when we survey the current scene. 

In 1941, Imperial Japan, knowing its own weakness, chose a non-conventional form of war, the surprise attack. Since the end of his first Presidential term, Vladimir Putin, knowing Russia's weakness, has also chosen non-conventional ways to promote his domestic powe…

The American National nightmare becomes a global nightmare

It is a basic contention of this blog that Donald J Trump is not fit for office.

A crooked real estate developer with a dubious past and highly questionable finances. he has systematically lied his way into financial or other advantage. His personal qualities include vulgarity, sexual assault allegations and fraudulent statements on almost every subject. 

He lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

He has, of course, been under criminal investigation practically since before he took the oath of office. The indictment of some of closest advisers is just the beginning. His track record suggests that in due course there is no action he will not take, whether illegal or unconstitutional in order to derail his own inevitable impeachment and the indictments that must surely follow the successful investigation of Robert Mueller into his connections with Russia.

However, all of that is a matter for the American people. 

It is also a matter for the American people that Trump is cheating…

The rumbling financial markets

Security specialists use a variety of ways to address the risks that they face: and these risk assessments are made in the certain knowledge that the actors in the system hold only incomplete information. Although much mocked at the time, Donald Rumsfeld’s categorization of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, is now generally recognized as a succinct summery of his strategic quandaries.
By contrast, actors in the financial markets have a more sanguine assessment of the risks they deal with: they divide them into two kinds of risk: quantifiable and unquantifiable. Unquantifiable risk is not generally considered, since there is usually no financial profit that can be made except from pure supposition. Therefore for the purposes of the financial markets, any given event is priced relative to its level of probability, that is to say its quantifiable risk. 
Depending on the market, higher levels of risk generally carry higher prices, lower levels generally lower prices. Clearly such an…