Day 243: Harman

[Silent Hunter]

Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham.

Yes, "Three Hats Harman". Lord Privy Seal and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

[Peter]

Shockingly, she is the Aunt of the House - the woman with the second longest continuous service, which is surprising given that she doesn't look particularly old.

[Rural Radical]

Shockingly, she is the Aunt of the House - the woman with the second longest continuous service, which is surprising given that she doesn't look particularly old.

Shes about 48-50 I think.

I assume Gwyneth Dunwoody (Lab, Crewe & Nantwich) since 1970 is the mother of the House.

[Silent Hunter]

Of course, many of the women in Parliament entered in 1997 and I suspect (Al, can you help here?) that quite a few of the Tory ones went in that election too.

[merseysider]

Harriet Harman has been an MP for 25 years - she was elected in a by-election in 1982.

[Democratic Hawk]

My party's Deputy Leader .... unfortunately . She was last in my preferences. In fact,  Harman is the only politician I've ever had the privilege of criticising on TV!

Dave

[Silent Hunter]

My party's Deputy Leader .... unfortunately . She was last in my preferences. In fact,  Harman is the only politician I've ever had the privilege of criticising on TV!

Dave

I didn't even vote for her full stop.

[afleitch]

Wow, 6 posts and no comment on that ball of news that appears to have caused strange memory lapses amonst the Labour faithful for the past few weeks. Come on chaps! Such partisanship is not doing our fellow forumites any favours

[Democratic Hawk]

Wow, 6 posts and no comment on that ball of news that appears to have caused strange memory lapses amonst the Labour faithful for the past few weeks. Come on chaps! Such partisanship is not doing our fellow forumites any favours

Would that be the innocuous, although seemingly misguidingly unlawful, £5000 donation to her deputy leadership campaign by David Abrahams through a proxy?

Furthermore, there is no reason to doubt why Harman shouldn't have thought that this donation came from a Mrs Kidd to her campaign in good faith

That's all there is to it

Dave

[afleitch]

Wow, 6 posts and no comment on that ball of news that appears to have caused strange memory lapses amonst the Labour faithful for the past few weeks. Come on chaps! Such partisanship is not doing our fellow forumites any favours

Would that be the innocuous, although seemingly misguidingly unlawful, £5000 donation to her deputy leadership campaign by David Abrahams through a proxy?

Furthermore, there is no reason to doubt why Harman shouldn't have thought that this donation came from a Mrs Kidd to her campaign in good faith

That's all there is to it

Dave

'Misguidingly unlawful' is still unlawful. But it's the line Labour push; Harman didn't know, Brown didn't know, Dromey didn't know (Benn did know but he shouldn't have let that one slip), Wendy Alexander didn't know about her own wee money spinner. (raising money for an election campaign with only one candidate) They also 'didn't know' when it came to Cash For Honours. So when faced with accusations of being crooked or institutionally incompetent, the government has chosen the latter.

While I would like to see a proper investigation into corruption regardless of 'who knew' the upside is that the public now see Labour as more sleazy and less trustworthy than the Conservatives during the darkest days of Majors administration (a few grand in paper bags and sex in a football shirt - oh the humanity! ) I'll be happy to take that and ride out the next 2-3 years.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In some respects, nothing exemplifies quite how silly and parochial British Politics can be than "sleaze". We talk as though minor irregularities and oversights (a comment that can be applied to that vast majority of scandals over the past few decades; and most of the ones that this isn't true about involved minsters private lives) are somehow equivalent to gigantic corruption scandals. During the Cash-for-Honours farce some ignorant journalists even compared the investigation to Mani pulite!

It's also a good example of how the political system damages itself; partisans of all sides won't stop attacking the other side for past or current "sleazes" because it's a sort of political open goal. Even worse is the tendency of senior politicians to try to present themselves as being, in Blair's infamous words, "whiter than white and purer than pure". There is such a thing as being a hostage to fortune; as Blair himself discovered and as other politicians will themselves discover over the next few years and next few Parliaments. A special mention should go out to Chris Huhne for this. Idiot.

[Democratic Hawk]

'Misguidingly unlawful' is still unlawful. But it's the line Labour push; Harman didn't know, Brown didn't know, Dromey didn't know (Benn did know but he shouldn't have let that one slip), Wendy Alexander didn't know about her own wee money spinner. (raising money for an election campaign with only one candidate) They also 'didn't know' when it came to Cash For Honours. So when faced with accusations of being crooked or institutionally incompetent, the government has chosen the latter.

Lets see what the investigation into 'Donorgate' brings before casting judgement on whether Labour is sleazy or not. Nothing came of 'cash-for-honours'

My opinion, however, is that David Abrahams merely donated monies through intermediaries, something which it has transpired ought not to have been sanctioned, so as to protect his anonymity. This is not in itself vindicative of 'corruption' as such

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Allegations alone can affect perceptions and, thus, public opinion; whether founded or unfounded. But if the public seriously think that , it's time for a reality check

Dave

[Silent Hunter]

Quite. At the end of the day, has anyone actually got any favours as a result of giving money?

[afleitch]

Quite. At the end of the day, has anyone actually got any favours as a result of giving money?

And that makes illegal donations okay?

May I also add, the recent affair is not 'sleaze'; it is corruption because it broke the law as opposed to breaking partisan pre-determined political conduct or 'morals.'

[Democratic Hawk]

Quite. At the end of the day, has anyone actually got any favours as a result of giving money?

And that makes illegal donations okay?

No, which is why the donations made by David Abrahams through intermediaries to the Labour Party are being returned and why the party's general secretary, who was aware of this arrangement, has resigned. The honourable thing to do on both counts, I'd say

Dave

[afleitch]

Quite. At the end of the day, has anyone actually got any favours as a result of giving money?

And that makes illegal donations okay?

No, which is why the donations made by David Abrahams through intermediaries to the Labour Party are being returned and why the party's general secretary, who was aware of this arrangement, has resigned. The honourable thing to do on both counts, I'd say

Dave

It is not honourable. Abrahams donated through known intermediaries who were not aware money was being donated in their name. Identities were stolen and, in all likelyhood, signatures forged. Secondly returning the money does not undo an illegal and criminal act, not within the law anyway. It was a weasels way out of crisis. Maybe they needed the money in such an underhanded manner to fund Miranda Grell's appeal

[Filuwaúrdjan]

May I also add, the recent affair is not 'sleaze'; it is corruption because it broke the law as opposed to breaking partisan pre-determined political conduct or 'morals.'

Corruption isn't usually defined as breaking the law. More to do with abusing office for private (or party or etc) gain, whether it's illegal or not is neither here nor there (example; Ernest Marples actions as Transport Secretary were corrupt but perfectly legal). Changing policy in exchange for donations could also be considered corrupt (which is why, as far as I'm concerned anyway, the most corrupt thing done by a member of the post-1997 Labour Government was the mess with Bernie Ecclestone. The money was returned and the policy changed o/c, but whether that's significant or a mere footnote depends on your political opinion).

[Silent Hunter]

There's a difference between mis-directing donations and taking kickbacks.

[afleitch]

There's a difference between mis-directing donations and taking kickbacks.

Naturally. However the donation was still illegal. The identities of the proxy donors (who didn't know they were 'donating') were compromised and the law was broken.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Even worse is the tendency of senior politicians to try to present themselves as being, in Blair's infamous words, "whiter than white and purer than pure". There is such a thing as being a hostage to fortune; as Blair himself discovered and as other politicians will themselves discover over the next few years and next few Parliaments.

Small fry I guess, but methinks my point is proved.

[Rural Radical]

Even worse is the tendency of senior politicians to try to present themselves as being, in Blair's infamous words, "whiter than white and purer than pure". There is such a thing as being a hostage to fortune; as Blair himself discovered and as other politicians will themselves discover over the next few years and next few Parliaments.

Small fry I guess, but methinks my point is proved.

Not suprised at all.