There has been some discussion in the press and the blogosphere about Harriet Harman running for PM. What do people think?

I have always been sceptical of affirmative action. I do however, support Barack Obama's policy on affirmative action, on the basis of economic background.

In the UK, when UCAS forms have to be filled in, the detail of your parents' education has to be mentioned. The right-wing media immedietly denounced this. Consider this. One student who went to an expensive nursery, then a private primary school, followed by an Eton education, enjoying one-on-one tuition, and then further private tuition and gets 3 A's, is compared with a student who gets 3 B's, lives on a council estate, and went to a comp with 25 people per class, having to work every night in a fast food restaurant to bring in money for their family. Isn't it probable, that in equal circumstances, the second student would do much better than the first?

Nonetheless, I was sceptical of this current bill. My worry was that affirmative action would just cream off richer women and minorities.

But I read in the papers (which I still maintain I loathe), of an encounter in Westminster:

David Heathcote-Amory, saw a black woman walking on the member's terrace and demanded to know if she was an MP. "Yes, I am actually. Are you?" Dawn Butler, the former adviser to Ken Livingstone replied. He snapped to his colleagues: "They're letting anybody in nowadays."

The same slanders against this bill, were said of one of the best acts of the Wilson administration, the Equal Pay act.

Harriet Harman has consistantly maintained loyalty to the government, but fought hard for progressive policies against people like John Hutton (why doesn't he just defect to the opposition?).

She reminded me in dark times, why I was a Labour voter. The pay gap between full-time workers is 17%, and between part-time workers, a shocking 40%. She said: "Do we think she is 40 per cent less hard-working, less intelligent, less qualified?"

It is a major factor in low pay that 70% of those on the minimum wage are women, and 40% of part-time workers are on the minimum wage. Feminism isn't some metropolital liberal worry about not enough female FTSE 100 directors, it is at our red beating heart of social justice.

Apparently though, not all agree. The Daily Mail has suprisingly been against this, normally being a much more wise and thoughtful paper. They say that women "choose less well-paid jobs" because they want "more time with their families". The Mail would have to imagine that every woman had a family, and that they had them in teenage years for this to be true (oh, wait, they DO think that every teenager is pregnant). The pay gap sets in long before women decide to have children (and contrary to the Mail's warnings, women are having children much later).

The Women and Work commission found that after just 5 years, the pay gap between those who have earned first-class degrees is 15%.

Indeed, the bill doesn't go far enough. Harman had to compromise with Hutton (who I just want to deport) on pay audits. Also, it was the Tories who not long ago, were mocking the government for not supporting pay audits.

Why do many conservatives like to pretend that there is no ideology in between cut-throat, tough luck, lassez-faire Thatcherism, and throw-you-in-the-gulag communism? These particular conservatives are more politically ignorant than I thought.

Pay audits, whereby private firms who underpay female workers can be named and shamed, enhance economic competition. It strengthens our economy, and social justice at the same time.

On the most contraversial part of the bill, it doesn't ban white men from getting jobs, as spun by the Express. It gives employers a legal right to balance skewed workforces, whether largely female/male or white/thnic minority. They are under no legal requirement. I have been to primary schools where the workforce was largely female, as have been the secondary schools I've been to. Employers would have the right to balance the workforce with more males. That's it. This is what the controversy has been about.

Now we return to another fine Labour woman, Barbera Castle. The same arguments were shot at her, word for word. We apparently can't afford gender equality in a time of 'recession'. This argument is potent, as most low-paid are women, so the wages of the low-paid would rise.

It is the same principle as tax cuts for the rich during times of recession. A recession used to be when a factory owner had to close his fourth factory. If you give tax cuts to the rich, he will open a fifth, failing factory, and spend the rest on boats and cars. If you give tax cuts to the bottom half, they will go out and spend the money in the local economy, allowing the factory owner to re-open the fourth factory. Everybody wins.

A feminist agenda would do wonders for the economy. The estimated NPV of universal childcare, on a neutral estimate in 2003 would have been £40 billion over 65 years. The top estimate, was £93 billion. Wasting women's education and skills costs us £23 billion a year.
Don't believe me? In Norway, they mandated that 40% on corporate boards had to be female, and business growth soared. Mckinsey found that stock growth went up by 53%, when there were more women in senior positions.


Never fall for David Cameron. He defines himself as a 'progressive'. That doesn't mean anything. Would anyone call themselves 'regressive'? George Osbourne says there is "much to learn" from George W. Bush's 'compassionate conservatism'.

This is what Boris Johnson ran on. His first act? Slashing half-price bus fares for poor Londoners. Would he be bewildered to know that many can't afford 4x4's? Apparently not. About driving these Chelsea tractors he says:

"Tee hee, I said to myself ... out of my way, small car driven by ordinary person on modest income. Make way for the Nissan Murano."

It isn't that the Tories are toffs (they are). It's that some can go to private schools, which allows them to be shocked by low pay, and poverty. Harriet Harman follows in the tradition of people like Attlee who have done so. Most of the Tories don't know any other world though.

This bill defines what Labour is for, and I hope it starts the process of bringing back soul to the party.

Harriet Harman performed well at both jokes and content at PMQs today, standing in for Gordon who is at a NATO summit trying to figure out what can still be done in Afghanistan. Both Iain Dale and Kevin Maguire thought Harriet won the occasion.

I spent this morning leafletting in the Labour marginal seat of Westminster North, where Karen Buck is the MP. Thousands of leaflets were delivered in that marginal seat today, yet I can't help feeling that the work done by the grassroots on the ground has been more than offset by the politcal blow in the national media from Peter Hain's deputy leadership election arrangements.

On Newsnight in half an hour, more about Harman's role in this latest Labour funding scandal will emerge. When will it be time for more heads to roll?

As many may have seen today, Harman has denied the comments she made about Iraq on the Newsnight Debate. I think like many people, in that Harman made these comments for support in the contest. Is there an element of truth in that she had doubts about going to war? And, just out of curiosity, who were the cabinet members hostile to going to war at the time (other than Cook or Short)?

Still , a winner is a winner. Well done Gordon, well done Harriet. Nearly there Alan. Only 0.8% short. Overall, a good result for the Labour Party and the affiliate trade unions (Particularly UNISON Labour Link – who I think can show that they can deliver, not enough this time obviously, however we need to build on how we communicate with our Labour Link members). I am convinced that Gordon and Harriet will be a winning team for Labour.

Just thought this might be a good place to post the results in full so people can comment on the statistical points. The first thing on my mind is that Benn was second in the Member section and a very slight third in the Union section when he was removed from the ballot - and was just 16 MPs short of beating Jon Cruddas...

...and who knows where Jon's preferences would have gone if a Benn were still in play?...

Who would have thought it?

What do we all think?  Somewhat more awkward and tougher for the candidates than Newsnight this one.

Some definite hostile vibes between Harriet and Hazel on show, with Hazel's "handbag wars" comment.  Hain giving off the "you've stolen my thunder" vibe to Cruddas - since when was Hain so concerned with affordable housing?  A bit of a Blears Johnson love-in at the end.  Harriet objecting to the Brown "patsy" jibe. Hmmmm........

On a day when George Osborne is claiming that Cameron's Tories are the 'heir to Blair' and accused Labour of 'lurching to the left' why on earth did Harriet Harman give him ammunation with her skin-crawling unprincipled performance during the Deputy Leadership debate on Newsnight?

The Newsnight deputy leadership hustings has surely turned this election upside down or are we at TMP getting a bit too excited!?

Harman's performance on the Newsnight debate seems to have placed her to the left of Jon Cruddas.

Here's the video of the speeches from the Progress / Fabian Society hustings 

A full house of BSS members and representatives from over 30 grass roots organisations, including the UK’s biggest trade unions, faith organisations and Black, Asian and minority ethnic pressure groups, are expected at the event in Westminster on Monday 21 May.  All six deputy leadership contenders - Jon Cruddas, Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears, Alan Johnson, Peter Hain and Hilary Benn will address the hustings.

Nominations have closed and all 6 candidates survived the threshold.