bacchus

She's off again: 'I'm no shrinking violet' says Harriet Harman

16 posts in this topic

Our old friend Harriet was interviewed on Radio 4's Woman's Hour yesterday, and of course mentions her crusade against men who pay for sex, demonstrating in the process both her talent for Stalinist revisionism and economy with the truth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8187370.stm

In the interview she says:

I think that there is no point tippy-toeing around… I mean if I'd been tippy-toeing around I never would have raised the issue of… shouldn't we have a criminal offence for men who exploit prostitutes and who exploit victims of human trafficking and that was immediately greeted with 'Huh! This is the oldest profession in world… surely we can't be prosecuting men, what about women who… choose to be prostitutes isn't it unfair to them, and there was a storm of protest… and then… then there was more discussion about it and debate, and then we changed the law, and everyone in the House of Commons agreed with it, so sometimes things start as a controversy and then they become conventional wisdom.

(Have pity on me... I had to listen to the blasted women quite a few times to capture all that. :()

More from the BBC website, as the Listen Again link above won't be there forever:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8187210.stm

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she is being clever in the way she always puts the word exploit in front of every thing.

Of course it is wrong to exploit a prostitute, just as it is wrong to exploit a 45 year old male factory worker by for example blackmail or paying them £2 per hour.

The interviewer should have got her to define what "exploiting" a prostitute means. Does this mean blackmailing them or does it mean paying for sex, when they have made a free decision to enter into that market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think she is being clever in the way she always puts the word exploit in front of every thing.

And even cleverer with "and then we changed the law, and everyone in the House of Commons agreed with it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's got that technique, like Blair, of throwing in a brick wall to stop the argument or criticism. Blair kept doing this effectively by dismissing any talk of rifts, scandal, press attacks as trivial off topic talk that the public aren't interested in - using phrases like "it's just summer fluff" etc. He was clever as he decided for the public what they were interested in. If she's not challenged hard on this, we're in danger of letting Harman get away with the same. I think she's far more canny than Brown...

I'll just this qualify and say that I'm pretty apolitical, I just don't like being told what I think, I know that myself thanks all the same :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And even cleverer with "and then we changed the law, and everyone in the House of Commons agreed with it".

Bingo. That's the bit where she was economical with the truth. :(

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's playing a typical politicians trick making the idea seem reasonable and all opposition unreasonable, however the fact she has acknowledged the counter arguments shows they have rattled her, (well done the IUSW and ECP and all other unsung heros opposing the attempted law changes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She's got that technique, like Blair, of throwing in a brick wall to stop the argument or criticism. Blair kept doing this effectively by dismissing any talk of rifts, scandal, press attacks as trivial off topic talk that the public aren't interested in - using phrases like "it's just summer fluff" etc. He was clever as he decided for the public what they were interested in. If she's not challenged hard on this, we're in danger of letting Harman get away with the same. I think she's far more canny than Brown...

I would put dismissing talks of rifts in a completely different league to claiming unanimous support for legislation that has not yet passed.

The media, with it's need to fill column inches and 24hr rolling news programmes, is obsessed with trying to find the tiniest differerence of emphasis between members of the same party, and turning it into a showdown. Of course people disagree about how best to proceed - it would be odd if they didn't - but the media do the public a disservice by constantly trying to present parties as divided when quite often they are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would put dismissing talks of rifts in a completely different league to claiming unanimous support for legislation that has not yet passed.

The media, with it's need to fill column inches and 24hr rolling news programmes, is obsessed with trying to find the tiniest differerence of emphasis between members of the same party, and turning it into a showdown. Of course people disagree about how best to proceed - it would be odd if they didn't - but the media do the public a disservice by constantly trying to present parties as divided when quite often they are not.

Yes I agree but she's using the same techniques, albeit to a much more extreme end. She's using the sort of "look, really we're all singing from the same hymnsheet and this is all just stuff and nonsense" tactics and extending it to cover the whole of the elected body. In this way it seems she's trying persuade the public that her legislation's effectively passed and that there's really no need for a vote, obviously there will be. It all's smoke, mirrors and gamesplaying, and whether it comes from politicians to sell their ideas or from journalists to sell their newspapers I'm just not interested in any of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwina Currie last night on Radio 4 PM described her(HH) as over educated.

they had Digby jones on discussing that tonight and he basically agreed, tarring her as the new breed of poliyicians who did degree, masters, political researcher, MP without ever having done a 'proper job'.

I think people are fed up with the professional politicians, and will seek to select people with valuable non political experience.

well I hope so.

(Kinks puts on crash helmet before Profman reads this!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our old friend Harriet was interviewed on Radio 4's Woman's Hour yesterday, and of course mentions her crusade against men who pay for sex, demonstrating in the process both her talent for Stalinist revisionism and economy with the truth:

She was at it last weekend in the Times as well, claiming that Men cannot be trusted to run the country, it looks like Harriet Harmon has lost her marbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear God this woman is deluded beyond all imagining.

She deliberately makes it sound like every prostitute has been trafficked and every punter is exploiting her. Is she stupid, or ignorant, or mad, or being disingenuous?

Clearly an attempt to raise her profile ahead of the leadership election, the one they'll be having after the general election.

A smart interviewer might have asked her if, therefore, women could be trusted to run the country i.e an all-women cabinet. But then a smart interviewer could have challenged her on a whole load of the guff she came out with especially relating to prostitution.

It's truly depressing to think that someone so ignorant and deluded is in such a position of power within a democracy, but then I look at Bush and Reagan....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fun thing here is that when someone tops Hattie, it will be quite difficult for plod to work out who it might have been!

Is there anyone, other than herself, who likes her?

(and she comes from a very normal, respectable, bourgeois family...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harman's approach appears to be a simplistic (to paraphrase Orwell crudely):

'Two tits good, two balls bad'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edwina Currie last night on Radio 4 PM described her(HH) as over educated.

they had Digby jones on discussing that tonight and he basically agreed, tarring her as the new breed of poliyicians who did degree, masters, political researcher, MP without ever having done a 'proper job'.

I think people are fed up with the professional politicians, and will seek to select people with valuable non political experience.

well I hope so.

(Kinks puts on crash helmet before Profman reads this!)

One piece of scum criticising another. Ho hum! :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edwina Currie last night on Radio 4 PM described her(HH) as over educated.

they had Digby jones on discussing that tonight and he basically agreed, tarring her as the new breed of poliyicians who did degree, masters, political researcher, MP without ever having done a 'proper job'.

I think people are fed up with the professional politicians, and will seek to select people with valuable non political experience.

well I hope so.

(Kinks puts on crash helmet before Profman reads this!)

A degree and a legal qualification might be sufficient but can hardly be said to be an excess of education for the deputy leader of the Party-in-power of a major western democracy!

That said I think EC may have some sour grapes over the Alan Clark incident. Clark was asked whom he'd choose out of HH and EC for a spot of rumpy-pumpy. The old roue said HH of course and that it was simply a question of class.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.