HARRIET Harman just can't help herself.
The deputy Labour party leader sparked outrage by claiming that men `cannot be left to run things on their own'.
She then poured oil on the flames by appearing to suggest that it was males who were responsible for the depth of the global economic downturn.
"Somebody did say that if it had been Lehman Sisters rather than Lehman Brothers then there may not have been as much (turmoil)," she said.
Ms Harman did make it clear that she wasn't the `somebody' in question. And her original point was slightly more sophisticated than saying that men made incompetent leaders. But only slightly.
"I don't agree with all-male leaderships," she said. "I think it's a thoroughly bad thing to have a men-only leadership."
Ms Harman's mistake is taking an essentially good point and stretching it beyond credibility.
Personally, I agree that party leaderships, like parliamentary parties, should strive for gender balance where possible.
If you have two equally capable candidates for the deputy post - one male, one female - and the leader is a man, there is at least a case for appointing the woman as number two. The reverse also applies.
I don't consider that positive discrimination. I consider it a case of trying to get a team with the broadest possible life experience.
That's a far cry from claiming that two men - or two women - can't do a good job in leading a party. It's a far cry from claiming that a party should always have a mixed team in charge.
Don't get me wrong. Getting more women into front-line politics has been good for Parliament, and good for Britain.
The `Blair Babes' may not have been the revolutionary force some had hoped. They have at least made Westminster a bit more family-friendly, a bit more recognisably human, a little less of a stuffy boys' club.
What they haven't done is completely transform the culture of politics. They didn't stop the expenses scandal - indeed they were implicated in many of the most serious cases.
But then, why should they? They may be women, but they are still politicians after all. Most of them aren't quite like you and me, regardless of gender.
Ms Harman herself is the privately-educated daughter of a Harley Street doctor; her life experiences have been quite different from those of her female constituents.
It's the same with the financial crisis. The problem wasn't that the top bankers were men, it was that they were top bankers. It wasn't a male culture at fault, it was an executive culture, which just happened to be predominantly male. Ms Harman is, in any case, the wrong person to be making the case.
Less than three years ago she was victorious in a hotly-contested Labour party deputy leadership race beating the likes of Alan Johnson and Peter Hain in the process. She won not because of her gender, but because of her ability to target party members on the left and centre-left.
She also remains the bookies' favourite to be the next party leader after Gordon Brown. She won't, in fact, win but that has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman. It is because she is temperamentally and intellectually unsuited to lead a political party.
She is an effective deputy; she is fearless and is prepared to take bullets on behalf of Labour. But she doesn't have a first-rate tactical or strategic mind, can come across as shrill and hectoring and is prone to the occasional gaffe. Some might say that makes her more empathetic. In politics, it makes her more of a liability.
There are plenty of women such as the extremely capable Yvette Cooper who should be ahead of her in the queue when the top job becomes vacant.
The fact is, Ms Harman hasn't helped anyone she claims to champion with her latest outburst - not women and certainly not the Labour Party. The government is still flat-lining in the polls, with one survey putting it on just 24 per cent in key marginal seats. It is desperate to get back on the front foot.
Ms Harman could have used her moment in the spotlight to push Labour's case. She could have taken the fight to the Conservatives. She could have SHOWN just how effective a female party figurehead could be. Instead she has dragged her colleagues into an unnecessary debate - and put herself on the wrong side of reason.
She has, in short, completely undermined her own point.
If I were a Labour MP, I'd be furious. And if I were a female Labour MP, I'd be doubly so.
Job advert prompts flood of applicants
CHRIS Davies, the Liberal Democrat Euro-MP, has been advertising for a parliamentary assistant.
In truth, it doesn't sound like the most glamorous job. The salary is £22,000 a year. The advert said duties could include everything from `dealing with constituency casework' to `sorting out domestic problems such as floods in Chris's apartment'.
Despite that, there were more than 750 applications. The successful candidate was a young French woman with two degrees - from Lancaster and Manchester universities. Not in plumbing, apparently, but then no one's perfect.
Read David Ottewell's Politics blog
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Harriet Harman is, as the Daily Mash described her, the worst person ever.
Perhaps she should spend less time whining about how much better the world would be in women ran it (perhaps she has posters of Maggie Thatcher in her bedroom?), and more time looking at genuinely terrible things like the closing of a womens refuge in Weymouth.
It's been closed due to equality legislation, as it only accommodates women and not men. Lunacy.
I long for the days when men of a certain age got a shed and disappeared down to the bottom of the garden.Now theyre dying their hair{usually red or auburn}and fighting for top positions until they die.Leisure is a death sentence for them.Id like to see more women at the top of all institutions and organisations,but those with a good mix of life experience.If they have spent that life in a mans world thats almost the same as being a man with regard to the way they come over,and they cant bring about the change we need.
Silly woman. If women didn't spend so much time giving birth, bringing up children, cooking, cleaning, being a good wife (oops I mean partner) to their other quarter, then perhaps we might have more women in positions of power. It's simple really, one or the other.
And what about gay men, aren't they in touch with the more sensitive side of things?
I wonder how many women inventions there have been compared to men?
Zimmerman.Why not google it and work it out?
Oddly, the lack of diversity in the soldiers returning from Afghanistan in body bags appears to have evaded Harriet and the rest of the "equality" movement. I've news for her; the so-called "glass ceiling" was never made of glass at all. It was made out of the same material as the Emperor's new clothes.
Was this actually written by Grimes and got mixed up at birth?
There has been deep and wide unfair negative discrimination against women in most walks of life ... the critics of Ms Harman do not appear to be even able to acknowledge that ... this discrimination is almost universal, except that is in the most low paid, short time and dirty jobs on the planet ... But addressing this is not just about fairness David. Choosing from 100% of the people who are immediately qualified or have transferable skills and can learn quickly is just good business, good manners and good sense. Why on earth would anyone want to deliberately pick business, banking, political, education, journalism leaders from 10% of the population? Yet that does appear to be what we do to a huge extent.
That is the context. Because of our 45 year working life and entrenched hegemony of white men, white middle class men, white straight men, white able bodied men, oh and a few exceptions here and there who are especially strong, rich, lucky, able to impersonate etc relying only on meritocracy and gender-blind selection now at entry level would take a very considerable time to work through.
We've been watching it these last 90 years since expansion of suffrage and about 40 years since the SDA and RRA. There has been progress. But very slow indeed.
In the 80s I was solely or jointly in charge of our Council's recruitment advertising activity for about five years. We then had 18 Departments. When I started EVERY ONE of them had mean at the very top and in most cases in a large proportion of the deputy positions and key functional heads.
During my time we got one to female HoD I think it was. A head of press. Not a success that one. And then over the past 25 years there has been more progress. Head of Culture, City Solicitor, some other HoDs I believe, certainly some SMT people in most Departments. Similarly in schools. From a very high proportion of male heads at all levels and types to something a bit more balanced.
25 years! And while there are those currently in the Town Hall who may look back on this as "our Chinese period" this activity was a catalyst and helped get us where we are today.
Why are there so few female Professors? And SMT bankers? And full board Directors? And professional Partners in Law and Accounts? And Editors, outside the "women" market? And MPs? And on and on and on. It's not about merit. It's about institutional, structural, social, political, economic sexism ... and all those other -isms follow similar patterns for similar reasons.
Merit needs a lift. 25 years remember. In one little Town Hall, taking some very bold steps. Whatever opposition - internal and external - and the media may say of Harriet I personally believe that this is a vital agenda for Labour. On grounds of both improvements in fairness and in our absolute effectiveness which will follow. Harriet may end up laughing last and laughing loudest. the business case is very compelling.
Needless to say I find some of the unsupported throwaway characterisations in this piece to be unhelpful, and possibly just possibly unconsciously informed with a small c conservatism. Perhaps even a lack of thinking things through? Successful teams need lots of different functions. Clone teams as the present systems deliver - like for example many Board Rooms and many Cabinet Tables - with just or mostly men or men-alikes just don't cover things in the same way as diverse teams. These tend to be MUCH stronger.
Well said David. Our European Neighbours watch with incredulity as we "positively discriminate" against white men. Discrimination is NEVER positive, no matter it is dressed up, and this drive over the last 20 years to promote someone because of their ethnicity, sexuality and gender rather than their ability to do the job has crippled many businesses and public sector organisations. No longer is the application and interview about your abilities, but rather about who you sleep with, what body you have, and whether you are helping an organisation achieve a statistic.