Kevin Meagher
Was Gordon Brown a sexist for not making Harriet Harman
deputy prime minister? Harriet seems to think so.
Last night, in a well-trailed speech about sexism in Westminster, she said:
“The truth is that even getting to the top of the political structures is no guarantee of equality.
“Imagine my surprise when having won a hard-fought election to succeed John Prescott as deputy leader of the Labour party, I discovered that I was not to succeed him as deputy prime minister.
“If one of the men had won the deputy leadership would that have happened? Would they have put up with it?”
It’s hard for this line of argument not to sound self-serving – and indeed it is.
However way you stack it up, this is a case of special pleading.
There is no constitutional convention or Labour party rule that means the deputy leader of the party should automatically become deputy prime minister.
Indeed, Harriet Harman was not even serving as a cabinet minister before she became deputy leader.
Would it not have been wiser, therefore, for her to have focused her speech on the lack of working-class and ethnic minority women among Labour’s ranks and offer some practical remedy?
There was precious little of that in the sections of her speech she leaked to the press yesterday.
Jon Cruddas, the first round ballot winner in the 2007 deputy leadership contest (and who, under first past the post, would currently serve as deputy leader, not Harman) actually stood on a platform of rejecting a cabinet seat so he could instead devote his time to party development.
Of Labour’s sixteen deputy leaders since the role was created in 1922, only two, Herbert Morrison and John Prescott, have actually become deputy prime minister.
Prescott is instructive because he is the precedent that Harman cites.
But the comparison is unwarranted.
Prescott had a Unique Selling Point, bringing balance to Labour’s top team as a working-class Northener to Tony Blair’s middle-class Southener.
Between them, they provided, respectively, an offer to Labour’s heartland voters and the Middle England ‘enemy territory’ the party needed to occupy in order to win.
It is less clear who Harman represents.
Clearly her gender adds some balance to the higher echelons of politics which are still male-dominated.
But as the privately-educated daughter of a Harley Street consultant and niece of a hereditary peer, she hardly came up the hard way.
So it wasn’t sexism.
The reason Harriet wasn’t made deputy PM is that, unlike Prescott, she simply didn’t serve a useful enough purpose.
Last night, in a well-trailed speech about sexism in Westminster, she said:
“The truth is that even getting to the top of the political structures is no guarantee of equality.
“Imagine my surprise when having won a hard-fought election to succeed John Prescott as deputy leader of the Labour party, I discovered that I was not to succeed him as deputy prime minister.
“If one of the men had won the deputy leadership would that have happened? Would they have put up with it?”
It’s hard for this line of argument not to sound self-serving – and indeed it is.
However way you stack it up, this is a case of special pleading.
There is no constitutional convention or Labour party rule that means the deputy leader of the party should automatically become deputy prime minister.
Indeed, Harriet Harman was not even serving as a cabinet minister before she became deputy leader.
Would it not have been wiser, therefore, for her to have focused her speech on the lack of working-class and ethnic minority women among Labour’s ranks and offer some practical remedy?
There was precious little of that in the sections of her speech she leaked to the press yesterday.
Jon Cruddas, the first round ballot winner in the 2007 deputy leadership contest (and who, under first past the post, would currently serve as deputy leader, not Harman) actually stood on a platform of rejecting a cabinet seat so he could instead devote his time to party development.
Of Labour’s sixteen deputy leaders since the role was created in 1922, only two, Herbert Morrison and John Prescott, have actually become deputy prime minister.
Prescott is instructive because he is the precedent that Harman cites.
But the comparison is unwarranted.
Prescott had a Unique Selling Point, bringing balance to Labour’s top team as a working-class Northener to Tony Blair’s middle-class Southener.
Between them, they provided, respectively, an offer to Labour’s heartland voters and the Middle England ‘enemy territory’ the party needed to occupy in order to win.
It is less clear who Harman represents.
Clearly her gender adds some balance to the higher echelons of politics which are still male-dominated.
But as the privately-educated daughter of a Harley Street consultant and niece of a hereditary peer, she hardly came up the hard way.
So it wasn’t sexism.
The reason Harriet wasn’t made deputy PM is that, unlike Prescott, she simply didn’t serve a useful enough purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment