Matthew Parris is right on Harriet Harman. Labour needs a clean skin - someone unassociated with the more deceitful and incompetent (and largely economic) aspects of Gordon Brown and New Labour. Someone like Harriet Harman in fact. Big on equality; small on the economy.
She of course has suggested that half the shadow cabinet should be women. But as Chris Dillow points out in his excellent blog, '...women are only one group of many which is under-represented in government. So too are: single people; ethnic minorities; people without degrees; people educated at state school; the under-30s, the over-60s; and, of course, the 95% of people with lower incomes than MPs. Ms Harman is not calling for quotas for these groups. So why single out women?'
And while were on that agenda, why not go the whole nine yards? Since men have been unfairly over-represented for the last 50 years, why not introduce a women-only shadow cabinet for the next 50 years? That way Harriet Harman and Diane Abbott could both be leader. One after the other.
Showing posts with label Harman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harman. Show all posts
Monday, 7 June 2010
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Non Dom Status
Harriet Harman on this mornings Andrew Marr show was very keen to keep the spotlight on Lord Ashcroft. We now know that more than £10 million pounds has been donated to Labour coffers by Lords Paul, Noonan and others - all of whom appear to be non doms - as well as similar sources to the Lib Dems.
Harman argues that Ashcroft has broken 'assurances' given at his enoblement and misled his own party, calling Cameron's judgement into doubt. Yet both the Cabinet Office and Parliamentary authorities have given the peer a clean bill of health in this weeks report.
Leaving aside the fact that Cameron had no role in Ashcroft's peerage - it was well before his time - the question nobody has asked is why were such 'assurances' not obtained from Labour or Lib Dem peers prior to their appointment? Or is it that 'a future fair for all' applies only to those that vote Labour?
Harman also needs to explain why - after thirteen years in government - did it take the intervention of Cameron in proposing that all members of parliament - both commons and peers - should renounce their non dom status and pay full UK tax in order to stay members, before the government acted?
Harman argues that Ashcroft has broken 'assurances' given at his enoblement and misled his own party, calling Cameron's judgement into doubt. Yet both the Cabinet Office and Parliamentary authorities have given the peer a clean bill of health in this weeks report.
Leaving aside the fact that Cameron had no role in Ashcroft's peerage - it was well before his time - the question nobody has asked is why were such 'assurances' not obtained from Labour or Lib Dem peers prior to their appointment? Or is it that 'a future fair for all' applies only to those that vote Labour?
Harman also needs to explain why - after thirteen years in government - did it take the intervention of Cameron in proposing that all members of parliament - both commons and peers - should renounce their non dom status and pay full UK tax in order to stay members, before the government acted?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
