Has Gordon Brown made his first administrative mistake in not appointing Harriet Harman deputy Prime Minister? My money is on the “yes” vote and here’s why. By not making her his second in command, he has freed her to become an alternative leader for the Party. Unshackled by the burden of government, Harman will see her self as able to criticise, attack and condemn any Brown policy or decision either she, or the membership, don’t like. Browns desire to reduce the role of the trade union block vote at conference is an ideal example of this. The new deputy developed strong links with the unions on the run up to her election; some commentators see this relationship as the root of her surprise victory. Being outside of the decision making process, she will be free to fight any planned changes.
Browns saving grace however, may come in Harman’s inability to lead effectively. Leo McKinstry, commentating in today’s Telegraph, does not create the picture of a typical Labour deputy leader. Whilst congratulating her on a remarkable comeback (she was sacked as Social Security Secretary nine years ago) he describes her as being “remarkably free of the deviousness that characterises so many other politicians”; if there’s one thing Labour deputies need, it’s deviousness, and by the bucket full! More importantly, as an ex colleague, he describes her as “poor at administration…had little grasp of economics” and in true George Bush style, she once asked McKinstry “Leo, remind me again, who’s Yasser Arafat?” I think we should also add lack of world history or general knowledge to the pot as well.
2 comments:
Less than 24 hours and she's already got herself into a right muddle over Iraq. The deputy leadership election will, I think, prove utterly meaningless. The man at the top, and nobody else, will decide what goes on.
I couldn’t agree more. But when the party starts to kick up a fuss, will Harman have the strength or ability to do anything about it?
Post a Comment