Biography: Politics and Government

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

London

This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Apologies. Both of us editing at the same time. Frelke 13:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" became Secretary of State for Social Security and was given the task of reforming the Welfare State. However, she made little progress" ..... I seem to remember that she cut benefits for lone parents and Tony sacked her because that proved so unpopular although it may have been his idea in the first place. Seriously , someone should describe this in the article. It is significant to her career. I am too biased to do it in neutral terms 20:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)mikeL

"The media contrasted his treatment with that of another fellow first-year, who had died on the way home after suffering the usual punishment, getting lost, and wandering on to some train tracks." - removed this paragraphy because it has terrible grammar and no references

"She is the longest continuously serving female MP"... this is wrong. 26 years is a lot less than, say, 32.5 years by Mrs Thatcher, 29 by Barbara Castle, to name but two of many examples. If she is the longest serving female MP in the 2005 Parliament, this is not clear. - Versalius, 16:58, 28 June 2008

The foregoing paragraph was written anonymously. I think the grammar is very good and that the information is relevant and that the entry should have been left alone 82.38.112.68 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)mikeL[reply]

Per the article, "Harman is a niece of Elizabeth, Countess of Longford and was educated at St Paul's Girls' School, London and the University of York, where she studied law." but York didn't get a law department until last year. Anybody know what this should say? — ThomasHarte 14:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She studied politics at York- see http://www.harrietharman.org/about_harriet.html Vanky 18:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is said about her time at the Brent Community Law Centre where, with Jack Dromey, she was much involved with the Grunwick strike (among other things). MWLittleGuy (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC) When you say 'involved' in Grunwicks, do you mean just hung around in a boiler suit pretending to care about workers rights, or more substantial actions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.34.245 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image above is believed to be a replaceable non-free image. It will be deleted on 2007-07-01 if not determined to be irreplaceable. If you believe this image is not replaceable, follow the instructions on the image page to dispute this assertion.--Sandy Donald 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is she really a QC? She seems to have qualified as a solicitor, and in the article there's nothing about her being called to the Bar. Perhaps for QC read PC? Millbanks 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her page on the Ministry of Justice's web site (http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/harman.htm) names her "Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP". --stephenw32768^{<user page><talk>} 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently solicitors can apply to take silk. I expect she got it because they couldn't face the fuss she'd make if she was declined. I'm told that being an idiot doesn't necessarily prevent someone becoming a QC. Heir2blair 11:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an objective voting record summary on key issues. Could people please not delete this as i feel it is more than valid to be here - on a MP's page. I haven't used any "weasel words" Chendy 11:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we need to change this. Firstly, we don't bold things. Secondly it is POV, what does 'moderately' and 'strongly' mean? In whose view? We've a statement to say she's normally supported the government, that fine. It is thus unneccessary to narrated all the times she had. I think it acceptable to say something about the excesptions and perhaps a bit about her attitude to Iraq. But the rest isn't any good.--Sandy Donald 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have originally sourced the information from "they work for you" where they list the info like that. On inspecting the source information form parliament i think you are correct that votes are either for or against. I will amend the information as opposed to removing it. Thanks for the clarification.Chendy 12:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But don't include all the places she has supported the government. The details of MP, who has been a cabinet member, has supported the government are not remarkable. What remarkable is only place she has either opposed it, or made it an issue by later trying to distance herself (e.g. Iraq). --Sandy Donald 12:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point that to you and (those who understand the intricacies of British politics) that it is trivial to highlight what she is required to do as a cabinet member, but it is her decision to be in cabinet (ie not resign etc) and so i feel it is important to clarify the key/controversial issues she has supported etc. i.e. it is not an excuse to say she voted for certain things because she was in the cabinet - she was in the cabinet because she shared certain views and intended on voting a certain way.Chendy 12:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a need to have a voting record for MPs? It's not useful information, it would never appear in an encyclopaedia entry or Who's Who, and it's very selective and open to misuse. Let's get rid of it. 82.69.77.254 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Alex T[reply]

It's a shame to see this go. A voting record is notable, specifically when it references contentious or controversial debates. The Iraq was vote was one such debate, with much public scrutiny and column-inches devoted to the votes. I remember there being some resignations also occurring due to the Iraq vote. To say that it is not relevant to a bio is wrong. As naive as it sounds the voting record of an MP is meant to reflect the will of their constituents. They are after all MPs who represent the electorate, not celebrities. Their votes are a reflection of that representation. Zammo —Preceding comment was added at 12:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I favour removing voting summaries from TheyWorkForYou.com for the following reasons (as well as those listed above). Some of these points were covered on Talk:David_Lammy, where the final decision was removal.

1a) The information is subject to considerable change and whilst TWFY is updated automatically, Wikipedia is not. Keeping it up to date for all MPs is too big a task for editors, and is unnecessary given the information exists elsewhere, on a well-known site that we already link to. This is particularly relevant as I've just compared the info in the current revision (228403824) to that on TWFY for Harriet Harman and it is different - the current revision says "Has not voted on a freedom of information act", whilst the TWFY page says "Voted for a transparent Parliament". It appears the criteria for this policy issue has been amended, or that it has been replaced altogether with a different one.

1b) TWFY.com is not the source of the information anyway. The data comes from The Public Whip and is interpreted by TWFY (although the two sites are have close links). Individual voting details may be relevant for particular politicians (Iraq for Harriet Harman is probably one, given her change of heart) but block copying is not. And I didn't think it was Wikipedia policy to directly copy blocks of information from other sites anyway.

2a) The choice of topics on which voting has been tracked is definitely POV, as they could almost all be construed as anti-government. There's nothing, for example, on whether an MP voted for/against more money for the health service, or for/against the schools rebuilding programme - issues that Labour supporters might point to to show their MPs in a better light. Who should decide if an issue is 'controversial' or not? TWFY.com have made a decent effort, but it's still their POV. For example, "introducing student fees" used to be one of their controversial issues - but now student fees are widely accepted and considered controversial. It has been replaced by "introducing student top-up fees", the controversy over which has declined and maybe that too will be removed in time.

2b) The anti-government POV aspect is reinforced by the fact that voting record summaries are almost only added to Labour MPs and not those from other parties. And from what I've seen it's often added by the same few editors.

3a) The way the summary of the voting record is calculated lacks subtlety. For example, an MP who voted in favour on all the votes on national smoking ban legislation, but voted against the legislation for bans that would have applied just to Wales or just to taxis in London is considered to be 'moderately in favour of banning smoking'. There is an argument to be had here (and a POV one at that) as to whether voting for a complete ban should over-ride not voting for smaller, piecemeal measures. The context is important for the data to be meaningful, and these crude summaries cannot always do justice to complicated issues.

3b) On this particular article, all the 'moderate', 'strong' and 'very strong' qualifiers to voting behaviour have been removed. This potentially makes the information inaccurate, as MPs may vote for one measure on banning smoking and against another. Having just 'for' or 'against' on Wikipedia is potentially misleading.

4) There is no appreciation in the voting record on the quality of legislation. MPs may approve of the intent behind the legislation, but not the wording of the bill in front of them. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 is an excellent example, as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats publicly backed the intent of the legislation to remove burdensome regulations from business, but voted against the government's bill on numerous occasions until the text was improved - and then supported it at the end. A voting summary could be produced that showed MPs as indecisive on key issues, when actually the way they vote each time is entirely consistent with their principles and reflects them doing their job of scrutinising legislation well. Principle and practice can justifiably be two different things in this context, and voting summaries cannot take into account.

5) The information is of particularly little value in relation to ministers and shadow cabinet members. It is unnecessary not only because there is an overt expectation that they will vote with the party line - it is the nature of being in party politics at the highest levels - but also because senior figures rebelling against the party line on important votes is so rare that when it happens it gets plenty of media coverage. Those occasions are certainly noteworthy, but there will be better source material (e.g. newspaper articles) to explain what took place and why, than a simple voted for or against checklist.

Despite all these criticisms I think the information can be very useful - when read in context with the explaination you get on the Public Whip site and the debate around the issue - and I support having a link to it on every MP's entry. Annexed (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I've removed the section on Controversy over the Iraq War. I think it puts undue weight on a single interview to have an entire section on this issue. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I restored it- it is certainly notable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsnight and Today asking politicians awkward questions is not uncommon, is there more to it than that? --h2g2bob (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This happened before her election as deputy leader and some people may well have been swayed to vote for her based on her agreement that an apology should be made. That was why such a controversy was generated about her seeming denial/about turn on the issue. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have put this as part of deputy leadership campaign. Not really controversial but worth mentioning as political positioning. 137.73.160.27 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... not married? Nobody in her life? 217.230.231.188 (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she's married to Jack Dromey. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tidied up the 2 sections dealing with the equalities bill, as they were slightly unbalanced and had some misleading statements. I have altered it to be more neutral, whilst noting the criticisms made of the proposal. I've also added links to the white paper itself and HH's speech and reply by Theresa May. IJBLondon (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back after revision by an anon user. The phrasing I used was not 'hiding the facts' - it covered the issue neutrally. I also removed the last sentence tacked onto this section about HH's nickname - of course its valid to have it in the article, but it was not a proper sentence and putting it at the end of this section is misleading as it was in use before the Equalities Bill. --IJBLondon (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the sub-heading Discrimination against white males to "Positive action" on discrimination. The BBC article referenced in this section says:

"firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to - or vice versa....Allowing "positive action" would help organisations such as the police better reflect the communities they serve by recruiting more female and ethnic minority officers, said Ms Harman. But if, for example, a headmistress wanted to discriminate in favour of a male teacher to balance an all female team that would be allowed too."

Quite the bigoted little git, isn't she? 24.6.159.76 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The heading Discrimination against white males is therefore incorrect, as it is not only against white males; it is against any significant majority of gender, ethnicity or age in a workplace. "Positive action" is how it is phrased in the BBC article, and keeping the quotation marks around it implies that the 'positive' nature of this discrimination is in dispute - as does its appearance under the 'Controversies' heading and the accompanying text explaining why it is controversial. Annexed (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added reference to Harman's desire to increase the representation of gay MPs to the very precise number of 39. I think it's worth highlighting. (I amended above heading to include 'heterosexual, since its inherent). Gmunder (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed 'massive'.137.73.160.27 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing positive about discrimination and that part of the proposed changes to the bill is soley intented to discriminate in favour of women and ethinc minorities. It is blantant that white males are going to be the main, by a massive margin, group to be discriminated against. The BBC article referenced does not call it 'positive' action, that is HARMANS name for it and it is blantantly untrue. She is an openly militant feminist and far leftie.

Harman pushes discrimination plan: "Harriet Harman sets out plans to MPs. Equality minister Harriet Harman has set out plans to allow firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minority job candidates." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm That is black and white mate. The bill is against white males.

What a load of crap. Keep your political rants to your blog - wikipedia has enough of it already. At least sign your goddamn username. 212.120.231.220 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How helpful!

A 'load of crap', what an incredibly persuasive argument.

READ, my myopic Guardianista friend:

'Equality supremo Harman admits new law will lead to discrimination against men' "The forthcoming Equality Bill would allow organisations to hire a woman or worker from an ethnic minority over a white male of equal ability." http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk?articleid=4229199

'Equality Bill: Labour's latest attempt at social engineering' "Faced with the choice of two equally skilled candidates the State would welcome employers opting for the woman rather than the man; the ethnic minority candidate over the white alternative." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/richard_tyler/blog/2008/06/30/equality_bill_labours_latest_attempt_at_social_engineering

'Harman pushes discrimination plan': "Harriet Harman sets out plans to MPs. Equality minister Harriet Harman has set out plans to allow firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minority job candidates." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm

The bill is intended to discriminate against white males. I wish it were not true but it is. So why attempt to mask it in the newspeak nonsense of the person who is pushing it? Is Wikipedia not in theory supposed to strive for UNbias articles? Then why take your 'facts' from the horses mouth in such a contentius issue? 86.165.192.165 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh! You can quote a couple of right-wing newspapers in favour of your view. I'm quivering in my vegan boots! My idiotic Guardianista views have never been challenged before!

My point was that wikipedia is not the place for political ranting. It is the place for a nice section explaining why some commentators (like the ones you are quoting) hold one view, balanced out by other commentators, and the person in question, holding a different view. If you want to push viewpoints, do it on your blog or the comments section of a newspaper, and stop wasting our time.212.120.231.220 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Well done on the wikilinks to illustrate your incisive comments. I'm feel so much better informed. 212.120.231.220 (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the equality bill is listed twice. Two entries for this seems unnecessary, these could surely be merged?86.165.192.165 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We could even consider merging "controveries" section with the rest of the article. It would be a more balanced way of presenting the debate, which deserves more than merely a little postscript at the end. 212.120.231.220 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is fleeting reference in this to her second home. This is in the pretty village of Waldringfield (I don't have a source, sorry). If anyone could elaborate that would be good.

I changed the infobox a while back and was reverted. I have today changed it back. I began changing the infobox because it showed the wrong date for the end of Harman's term as Solicitor General. Along the way to getting it to work right, I changed a couple other things. First, I changed it from template:Infobox Deputy Prime Minister to template:Infobox Officeholder. They former seems to just redirect to the latter, but still seems odd to use since she is not Deputy PM (I assume it was copied from John Prescott's article). I also changed the order in which the offices are displayed. It seems to me that Harman's current public offices should be displayed before her current party ones. The only reason I can think of for putting Deputy Leader near the top is the fact that she has deputised at PMQs. The article Leader of the House of Commons suggests that she did so because of that office, not the Deputy Leadership. This might be supported by Harman's apparent belief during PMQs that Theresa May, the Tory Shadow Leader of the House, should have deputised for those sessions rather than William Hague.

As I said, I was reverted. If someone seeks to do it again, could we please talk about it here? -Rrius (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harman is just clueless about that. If she had any sense of memory she will recall that the opposition always put their number two up as the second regardless of whether the second government figure is the deputy leader or Leader of the House or what. Labour did the same when they were in opposition, without her whinging. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the article Prime Minister's Questions supports the interpretation that the post of Leader of the House, not Deputy Leader, explains why Harman deputises, "If the Prime Minister is away on official business then a substitute will answer questions. This is usually the Deputy Prime Minister, a post currently unfilled; the Leader of the House of Commons, or another senior Minister." -Rrius (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor recently changed Ms. Harman's birth year from 1948 to 1950. The only thing I saw on a very quick Google search was a IMDB knock-off that agrees with the IP editor. Does anyone have a real source for either year? -Rrius (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC page from 1997 agrees with the 1950 date. Road Wizard (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, my concern is that she may have shaved a couple of years off at some point. If we can't get a definitive source (such as a legal document), can someone use her years in school or year admitted to the practice of law as circumstantial evidence? -Rrius (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRO Index birth entry September quarter 1950 Marylebone volume 5d page 470 - Harriet R Harman mother's maiden name Spicer Keith D (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs more detail on why Harriet was not made Deputy Prime Minister, at the moment I think there is only a light mention of it. It says she did want to be DPM but no reason to is supplied to why. I hard that she was given Party Chair instead but that's no real substitute. Also is it right that on the Cabinet of the United Kingdom page Harriet is not in second place in the hierarchy of the government. She used to be in last place but got promoted to around 5th I think.

[User:thealexweb|thealexweb]] (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons not to: just because Prescott was Dept. Party Leader and Dept. PM doesn't mean every person holding the former office would hold the latter. Also, we can't just speculate about why GB would choose not to have a DPM—we'd need verification. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the government hierarchy question, I don't think there is any formal precedence over which role outranks another. It is just a matter of perception of the importance of the post and the influence of the holder at any given time. For example, a Foreign Secretary is seen as important when the public gaze is on foreign affairs but less so when there are bigger domestic problems to sort out.

If you want to place her in the number 2 position you will need to find some significant source evidence, as even the official Downing Street press release lists her in 11th place.[1] Road Wizard (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in times past there was a formal ordering for Cabinet ministers, but it tended to be worked out on an ad hoc basis for each government rather than a strict ranking by job held. Also it would probably have only been of importance for various ceremonies and very formal lists, and even then different listings might use different orderings. (For example for a long time the Home Secretary ranked above the Foreign Secretary, simply because when the two posts were created the first Home Secretary was a peer and the first Foreign Secretary a commoner. I believe the Palace lists continued to follow this ranking long after government lists used the reverse order.) Timrollpickering (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the passing of confidential documents to her by her sister should count as a controversy? Currently under the family section. Bedeage

I have removed this out of this section as it is not about the contest or the deputy, I am open to disscusing if it is worth perhaps reinserting somewhere else.

this....

During the campaign Harman participated in a live debate on Newsnight with the other deputy leadership candidates. Jeremy Paxman asked the candidates whether, if knowing what they knew now, any of the candidates would have voted against the war,^[1] Harman responded by saying that "if I'd have known if there weren't weapons of mass destruction I wouldn't have voted for the war. Clearly it was a mistake. It was made in good faith. But I think with a new leadership we have to acknowledge the bitterness and anger that there has been over Iraq and that we were wrong." When asked by Paxman if the Labour Party should say sorry for what happened, Jon Cruddas said that it should; Harman replied that she agreed with his statement. Later Harman appeared to backtrack on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme and asked for evidence to be provided of where she had stated that the party should apologise.

Actually the comment that is relevent to Harman was already duplicated in the Votingsection... so it is not worth reinserting in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether this merits being including as "politician being evasive" is hardly news but I put it in the deputy leadershi[p section as it took place during a deputy leadership debate during the deputy leadership contest. It goes beyond what is mentioned in the voting section.

But as I said I am not sure it should be mentioned at all... Thoughts?

Grakirby (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten some sections and moved things around a bit, I thought the article was a bit negative towards Harmen abd that it was a bit tabloid. If anyone has gone any comments or concerns about any of my edits, feel free to discuss them with me here. Off2riorob (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some good edits. I came across this article the other day and thought it way too negative, with far too many pinion pieces from the Daily Mail. I tried to add some counter quotes to give balance.

Couple of things? Perhaps source TB's support for Harman rather than just delete. Of course someone can have more than one job! If I have a day job then take on a weekend job, I have more than one job. Some of Harman's roles are party roles, some are governemnt etc.

Anyway these are minor quibbles as the article is looking miuch better today than it did yesterday. Grakirby (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The 5 jobs are more like positions and titles than actual jobs. A couple of times it is mentioned and there are cites including that Harmen is a blairite, link me the diff and if you think it's important lets put that back. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry I didn't reaslise there was a talk on the recent edits. Some were ok, but as others have pointed out there really was uncalled for deletion of really key sentences - eg the complete removal of key quotes of the findings of the electoral commission and such edits clearly needed to be reverted immediately. The worst edit of the lot was the wholesale deletion of the fact Harman's sister was found in contempt of court for passing papers to Harman herself. Then the same editor proceeded to add a fact tag questioning whether Harman even has a sister called Sarah, when he himself had deleted the actual source proving as such. Please don't just delete the controversial parts of her career or quotes which are critical of her - just add something supportive instead if relevant. Also please spell her name correctly - it is "Harman" not "Harmen".--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]