Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

May 21, 2007

Oh, no, please! Absolutely anybody but Harriet

Of the three billion possible choices for Labour, don’t let it be her . . .

Tim Hames

In theory, an election that involves six contenders should be an awful lot more interesting than another with just one. In practice, the race to be deputy leader of the Labour Party may not be much more inspiring than Gordon Brown being crowned unopposed. The post is pointless and the candidates are struggling to pretend otherwise. Who cares if Alan Johnson is edging a little to the left or Hilary Benn nudging a shade to the right, or if Peter Hain wears hairspray? My sole regret is that there wasn’t one more valid nomination, then we in the media could have dubbed the lot of them “the seven dwarves”.

There is, nonetheless, one aspect to this escapade that captures my attention. Under no circumstances should Harriet Harman emerge as Labour’s deputy leader and, worst still, a potential Deputy Prime Minister. I have not seem a more useless aspirant to power since a party leader in Denmark in the mid-1970s almost came to office on the back of a promise to place tripwire along the border that would blast out “we surrender” in Russian were the Red Army to invade.

The essence of the Harman pitch is the argument that the deputy leader “has to be a woman” or, at a minimum, “should be a woman”. I have spent many (pretty dull) hours carefully reading the Labour Party rulebook in a vain attempt to obtain evidence for this supposition. Indeed, I have shown the sort of diligence that a Biblical scholar might have for the Dead Sea Scrolls. No hint of such a requirement has manifested (or womanifested) itself. Nor does the behaviour of John Prescott since assuming the title of deputy leader 13 years ago indicate that he believes it “has to be a woman” either. He has never sought to offer Danny La Rue a run for his money.

And even if it “has to be a woman” (which it does not), this doesn’t mean that it has to be Ms Harman. There are, after all, about three billion women on this planet. So if it has to be a woman, then let it be Dawn French, Dame Helen Mirren or that strange-looking woman who won the Eurovision song contest for Serbia. They have at least demonstrated a modicum of talent.

It is not as if Ms Harman has a monopoly on being female in this struggle. There is Hazel Blears, the Labour Party chairman. She might not be everybody’s cup of tea, but she does pass the chromosome test. She has, admittedly, a somewhat eccentric slogan – “I’m nuts about Hazel”. This reminds me of the 1964 American presidential election (I was in the womb at the time but precocious) where the posters for the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater, bore the words “In your heart, you know he’s right”, underneath which Democrats everywhere scribbled “In your guts, you know he’s nuts”. Ms Blears is at risk of similar mockery.

But she is a woman. When I pointed this out to a (male) dedicated Harmanite or Harmanist or Harmaniser (whatever they are to be labelled), the devastatingly intelligent riposte that followed was: “Oh, don’t be daft, she can only be about 4ft 10in tall.”

So, it seems that the invisible ink part of the Labour Party constitution has been revised further. Not only does it “have to be a woman”, it “has to be a woman over a certain (unspecified) height”. Naively I had always thought it was the function of the Labour Party to stand up for the little people in life, not to insult them. Did Marx declare: “Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, except the shortarse females at the back, who have to remain locked up for eternity”? He most surely did not.

If one puts to one side the detail that Ms Harman appears to be championing the largest and least meritocratic positive discrimination scheme in history (which is charitable), what about the policies upon which her bid is based?

These can be ascertained by visiting the website www.harrietharman.org (although www.slowandpainfuldeath.com would be no less appropriate). If, having signed the necessary paperwork (last will and testament and so on) one makes the effort, then it becomes even more obvious that this contender and her campaign are as bright as Pyongyang at midnight during a power cut. For the magic word (apart from “woman”, of course) is “listening”. So much so that one has to rewrite the unofficial requirement for a Labour Party deputy leader to become “a woman over a certain (unspecified) height with a decent pair of ears”. I had wondered why Jack Straw dropped out of this battle months ago, but since he is a man and is deaf in one ear he must have determined that he did not meet the informal but demanding qualifications required. On and on she drones about “listening”. Am I the only voter in the land who would prefer that politicians stopped blathering (insincerely, invariably) about listening and went for another course of action, such as, for instance, doing?

Not that it is only about listening. Ms Harman recently enlightened the Young Fabians (both of them) with the insight that she wanted Labour to be “dynamic, committed and confident” (does Mr Johnson want Labour to be slothful, ambivalent and gripped by a crisis of self-esteem?). She is also dead keen on supporting “active campaigning” (is Mr Benn into passive campaigning”?) and favours a party that is “democratic” (John Cruddas will be surprised to learn that he must, therefore, be aching for dictatorship).

I would conclude by dismissing all of this as appallingly vacuous, though if this corner of cyberspace is anything to go by, the sort of people who are promoting Ms Harman probably think that vacuous is something unfortunate that sometimes occurs to the veins in the legs as one gets older.

Couldn't agree more!

Useless lackeys, to a man (or woman)!!

P wilson, Wood Green,

I'm a card carrying Labour supporter (yes, there are a few of us still around) and thus will be getting a vote in the upcoming Deputy Leadership elections. The only candidate that truly seems to understand the plight of ordinary members is Jon Cruddas. The man has intelligent things to say, that is sadly all too often tarred with the phrase 'lurching back to the left'.

I don't want a Deputy Leader who is determined to go off and pursue their career at Cabinet level, be at the centre of policy making and therefore have a nice slot on the evening news. Jon Cruddas has identified and fully understands why Labour has lost nearly five million votes since 1997 and why our membership has halved. He is the sole candidate to give all his efforts and strength into rebuilding the Labour grassroots and the bedrock of Labour support. He is the man that I will ultimately trust with my vote to try and ensure that this happens.

Eventually, it would be nice to be proud to support Labour again.

Dan, Stratford Upon Avon, England

I don't see why Harriet Harman's been singled out for having uttered serial blandishments; this seems to be a reasonably well established feature of contemporary leadership debates. Ms Harman certainly doesn't seem to have come out with noticeably more 'motherhood and apple pie' stuff during this campaign than any of the other contenders. Or, indeed, than any of the contenders for the Tory leadership in 1990. The article also overlooks the significant progress that has been made on work-life balance since Ms Harman began lobbying for this agenda in the mid-1980s (for example the extension of a maternity leave settlement closer in its tenets to those provided in continental European countries, see also measures she has introduced to tackle people trafficking and domestic violence). I appreciate Mr Hames may oppose such measures, but it seems lazy to write a highly personalised hatchet job like this without even a cursory mention of the last couple of decades of the subject's career.

D Webster, London,

Now why can't political writers in the US use this kind of humour in their writings? Over here, sattire is truly dead.

Sarah, Chicago, IL, US

I've had no time for Harman since she spoke to me and other sixth formers in about 1993. She was probably the least eloquent and informed person in the room even in that company.

Harm-less, Northampton,

It is so sad that I, as someone from the political left, found your article hugely amusing. But, I did and it was. What is worse is that I agree with most of it. Jon Cruddas is the only light in an otherwise very dark tunnel. Please note that I wrote that I am from the political left, I used to be a labour party supporter but I gave that up when I realised that I had voted for the most right wing government in my memory. Good riddance Mr Blair!

Marc, St. Barthelemy, France

Ah. Nu Labour; setting a low standard and consistently failing to acieve it.

As for Cruddas serving a dictatorship, they have all been doing that for the past ten years. Perhaps with the backing of the whole party and the country Brown will actually find the nerve to depose the current incumbant before he does any more damage. Not that I think Brown will be any better, probably worse. But at least he won't sign us away to Europe next month as a parting 'goodwill' gesture.

Steve Ipswich, London,

Very well said, Mr Coates.

It really does The Times no credit at all to run silly articles such as this. I carry no torch for Ms Harman but if this sort of smug smart-Aleckery represents the best the comment pages can manage, perhaps it's time for some new columnists.

Stephen Powers, London, UK

A Coates, London,

I was under the impression that the qualities required for the position were incompetence and ineptitude, given the holder of this position for the last 13 years. HH would appear to be over qualified.

D Morley, Tunbridge Wells,

Peter and Bob, brave words my friends, brave words

steve , sunshine Coast, Australia

Dan, Stratford Upon Avon, England

I absolutely hate Harriet Harman, an excellent article which I agree wholeheartedly with. Things like her obsessive plans to make the parliament split between men and women, black and whites etc are what worry me. It is idiots like Harman who are the very hierarchy of the PC brigade. For commonsense to prevail I think Benn or Cruddas should be chosen. But as has already been reitterated ANYONE but Harman.

Stuart Rowan, Edinburgh,

It must ber John Cruddas. he is the only decent one out of the lot

martin, kempston,

To single Harriet out seems a little generous to the rest of the labour party to be honest .

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

A Coates, London,

Quite agreed. If it is imperative that Labour has a woman as deputy leader, then Harman should step down to make way for Hazel Blears and avoid splitting the vote. At least Blears has other policies besides being a woman.

Harman's campaign is platitudinous and derivative drivel. Her website authors have even nicked the background for their purple banner from a Mac OS X wallpaper. Lazy!

Daniel W, Oxford, UK

Hever mind Harriet,I am much more frightened of the appalling BLEARS;be afraid,be very afraid..........

Michael J Rigby, Chorley Lancashire, England

From the quality of Ms Harman and most of the candidates, we must hope that Gordon Brown agrees with John Cruddas and decides that the deputy should devote their time to Labour Party matters and not be in the cabinet.

Doug Foster, Durham,

Harriet Harman says she is listening, but is in fact deaf in both ears.

Don, Leeds, u.k.

Good point, talking about the seven dwarves. May be that didn’t go far enough?

What about “Slush Brown and the Seven Garden Gnomes”? OK, there are only six of them, but what’s the point in being Chancellor of the Exchequer if you can’t decide that Six means really Seven?

Who’s the Queen, though? Well, I never knew that Iraq has such a thriving iron shoe manufacturing sector…

But what would Harriet Harman be? Could it be Princess Charming? Oh dear.

That leaves us with the only important issue: what would the mirror say? And what would be the question?

John, London, UK

I adore jeremy paxman and I know his first choice would be hazel blears...he adores her...giggle....lets have her just to please Monsieur Paxman

ruby cooper, nice, france

I seem to remember that HH (along with Patricia Hewitt) was a very vocal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties some years ago.

Before either of them seek political advancement, they really ought to go back and have another spell with the NCCL - maybe they are waiting until after the next general election?

What would they say of civil liberties in Britain today?

MarkS, Leeds,

She is backed by Neil AND Glenys Kinnock. Her campaign is moving into top gear, not!

Chris Gillibrand, Brussels in Exile, "Democratic" Belgium/ Europe

I'm surprised (I'm a card carrying Tory) that more commentators haven't spotted what a brilliant candidate is Jon Cruddas, the Dagenham MP who is standing for this position. I suppose as a partisan I should keep my fingers crossed that Labour will select someone as awful as Harman or Hain, but I can't help hoping that Jon Cruddas wins. While I don't agree with his policies, he exhibits an understanding of his party and (crucially) of his electorate which is lacking from the other contenders (I imagine that this happens to anyone after a spell in the cabinet). He's decent, intelligent and likeable.

Graeme Archer, Hackney, London, UK

I don't see why Harriet Harman is manifestly worse than Peter Hain or Hazel Blears, neither of whom have shone at anything they have done in Government. At least Peter Hain and Harriet Harman have both had an interesting life before Parliament.

The remaining three candidates seem competent enough. Only one candidate seems willing to engage with the disaffection of the voters, so if I were a Labour party member I would vote for Jon Cruddas (I am in fact a floating voter). He is the outsider in the opinion polls this morning. If I were a a Labour party member, I would think long and hard about why that should be.

antifrank, London, UK

Bob Doney, Camberwell. You've hit the nail right on the head regarding why this government has to go, and go soon. They will never let the mere wishes of those who elect them stand in the way of their politically correct agenda. Since the Tories and the Lib Dems are little better, I'm not sure where to go to place my cross at the next election but it will certainly not be for one of the three main parties. Could we not make MPs honorary immigrants and deport them to the countries whose citizens they clearly value far above the indigenous British.

Peter Bolt, Redditch. I think your wrong about feminism. It isn't the last refuge of the incompetent - it's the first!

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

They used to say Patriotism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel.
Could it be that Feminism is the last refuge of the incompetent ?

Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK

She sounds perfect for a useless position like deputy prime minister - it stops her doing harm elswhere.

Marek, London, Uk

I am particularly touched that as Deputy Leader HH will "ensure that we quadruple our black and asian MPs - to make us representative of today’s Britain".

Apparently ye voters are to be left out of this process.

Bob Doney, Camberley,

Also in Tim Hames

A whopping big majority is pointless

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

Tim Hames

Tim Hames joined The Times in 1999 and is a columnist and Chief Leader Writer. He was previously a lecturer in American and British Politics at Oxford University