This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

A response to your "solutions"?—mine is no. The topic is fine for red hair, but is not appropriate here. The fact that Harman said it does not make it necessary to include here. -Rrius (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a response. What about Alexander though?, editors also wish to add it to that article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People have deleted and others have reverted her title as Shadow DPM. Personally I feel that that is a role she plays--if not why is she asking questions to Nick Clegg during DPMQs? Can someone settle this matter?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor insists that Harriet Harman is the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and cites Harman's personal website and a BBC report. If that were the sum total of the sources available, that would be enough to go on, but it is not. The Labour Party provides a list of its Shadow Cabinet members; therein she is listed as "Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development".[1] The House of Commons also provides a list of the entire Opposition front bench. On that list, she is listed on the Shadow Cabinet list as "Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development".[2] Lower on the page, she is listed as "Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and Deputy Leader". The fact here is that we have two essentially perfect sources confirming that she is not in fact Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Logic also supports this. Harman does in fact shadow Clegg with respect to his role as deputy leader of the coalition Government. But, Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Justice Secretary, shadows him in his ministerial portfolio of minister for political and constitutional reform. Khan is listed on the two pages I linked to as "Shadow Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice (with responsibility for political and constitutional reform)". -Rrius (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clegg is not deputy leader in the coalition government; he is Deputy Prime Minister. So if Harman shadows him but is not Shadow DPM, then what do we call her?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically Harriet Harman doesn't shadow Nick Clegg she simply does Prime Minister's Questions when Ed Miliband doesn't attend (when the Prime Minister isn't available to do PMQs the Deputy Prime Minister or Leader of the House of Commons or Deputy Leader of the Party in Government takes the session [Nick Clegg in this instance as Deputy PM] and then by convention the Leader of the Opposition doesn't attend and the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons or Deputy Leader of the Party in Opposition stands in [Harriet Harman in this instance as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party]), so Harman is simply Deputy Leader of the Opposition/Labour Party and Shadow International Development Secretary.talk14:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clegg has his own DPMQs. Harman is the main shadow figure there. So what do you call her in that capacity?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would still refer to her as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as any subject can be asked during DPMQs Harman can question Clegg on Government policy in her position as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, also as Clegg mainly deals with political and constitutional reform he is also questioned by the Shadow Justice Secretary (with responsibility for political and constitutional reform) Sadiq Khan and the Shadow Minister for Constitutional and Political Reform Chris Bryant. talk 83.244.130.166 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree. So is she lying to parliament on her webiste by stating she is "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" [3]? And please get an account.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I will continue to go from the Labour Party Website [4] which has her position as 'Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development' and from the UK Parliament Website [5] which states the same. (talk) 83.244.130.166 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to your "get an account" comment, please see WP:HUMAN. Proteus (Talk) 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to respond to three points: First, when I say she shadows Clegg in his capacity as deputy leader of the government, I am referring to the fact that Clegg has cross-governmental responsibilities in addition to reform. The second point is where Foxhound66 (calling himself "Other dictionaries are better") says Harman has primary responsibility for DPMQs. That's not quite correct. She gets in a question, but the Shadow Justice team (Khan's team), who are responsible for shadowing him on political and constitutional reform, also get questions in the same way that departmental questions are handled for all other departments; indeed, Khan himself has asked questions at DPMQs. Finally, in answer to the question (as already stated), when she questions him on cross-governmental issues, it is as Deputy Leader of the Opposition (as Labour and Parliament tell us). Is she lying when she calls herself "Shadow Deputy PM"? I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but she is stretching the truth (not surprising since she was reportedly upset Brown didn't make her DPM; this may just be a way to put out a marker that if they do win the next election, she thinks she should be DPM). In any event, Harriet Harman is not the one who assigns responsibilities to the Shadow Cabinet; Ed Milliband does that, and the evidence of how he exercised that power is on the Labour and Parliament websites. -Rrius (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again there's no deputy leader of the government; it's just Deputy PM. In fact if you want to count seniority after the Prime Minister, it goes to William Hague, who is the First Secretary of State. Watching the DPMQs, Harman gets one question, and it is related to Clegg's work as a DPM, not his parliamentary work nor his judicial reform. In that sense, what is Hamran doing there if she is not a Shadow of Clegg which is a DPM?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the use of lowercase. David Cameron, as Prime Minister, is responsible for all of government. Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister, also has cross governmental responsibilities. In that way, he can be seen as a deputy leader of the government. I'm not using that as a title, but as a descriptor of those cross-governmental responsibilities. Harman, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, questions him on those cross-governmental responsibilities. Sadiq Khan, or a member of his shadow team, also question Clegg at DPMQs on his responsibilities for political and constitutional reform. Thus, both Harman and Khan shadow the Deputy Prime Minister. Your logic seems to be that since Harman shadows the DPM, she should be called "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". But since Khan also does that, by your logic, he should also be called "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". What matters is not your logic, but what the leader has chosen to do. When Harman was leader, she appointed Jack Straw, who as Shadow Justice Secretary already had responsibility for political and constitutional reform, to shadow Nick Clegg in both capacities, therefore it made sense when she gave him the additional title of "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". By contrast, Ed Milliband chose to give responsibility to his deputy leader part of the responsibility and Sadiq Khan another part, dividing the role. As such, it would have been unnatural for him to call either one "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". Instead, she shadows the Deputy Prime Minister as Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition, and he does as Shadow Justice Secretary. -Rrius (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khan shadows Clegg? Khan primarily shadows the Cabinet Office Ministers/Minister in the Prime Minister's Office. Khan in fact shadows Ken Clarke first. Khan's apperance at DPMQs is to bloster Harman's position not the other way round. There's only one shadow of another government Minister. Back to Nick Clegg: despite his position as a coalition member , he is not the deputy at all; remember he stated that even if Cameron is out of the country (as it was in the early stages of the Libyan crisis), Cameron is still in charge. Cameron placed control under Hague, the Fist Secretary of State.PS: I'm not the one reverting the position of Shadow DPM; it's that IP address. I've already placed a message on his/her talk page,perhaps you can follow suit.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Khan shadows Clegg. Look at who responds to him when he makes announcements about political and constitutional reform: is it Harman?—no, it's Khan. The reason is the that the Justice Secretary (and it's predecessor offices) is generally responsible for political and constitutional reform. As such, the Shadow Justice Secretary continues to fill that role despite the moving of the responsibilities to Clegg. Khan or a member of his team also questions Clegg at DPMQs. His team's participation at DPMQs is not to bolster Harman at all; she questions on her topic, and they question on theirs. Departmental questions, including DPMQs, do not work like PMQs, and you have to stop believing otherwise. Your bit about Hague is irrelevant. Nick Clegg has cross-governmental responsibility for policy, just as Cameron does, though subject to it. That is the portfolio on which Harman questions him. She does not question him on his substantive portfolio of political and constitutional reform because that is the job of the Sadiq Khan and the Shadow Justice team. If you don't believe Khan has responsibility for shadowing the Deputy Prime Minister, look at a Cabinet list side-by-side with a Shadow Cabinet list. Frankly, if you want the answer to the question "Is Harriet Harman the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", just look at the Shadow Cabinet list. Ultimately, the lack of inclusion of any such list is what is all important. What I am trying to explain to you with Sadiq Khan is that it makes perfect sense that Ed Miliband hasn't named a Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, but what really matters is that we can prove he didn't by looking at his Shadow Cabinet list. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need a British politics expert moderator here. It seems like its only the 2 of us; the IPs are the the ones reverting and re-reverting without giving a argument here.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last stable version was without the title, and it should stay that way until such time as consensus develops in favour of inclusion. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As asinine as it is to suggest that she is Shadow Deputy Prime Minister when she already has the title "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" and has to share the duty of shadowing the Deputy Prime Minister, it is even more asinine to put that made up role in with Shadow Development Secretary in the infobox. If people insist on asininity, at least make a separate office instead of mindlessly reverting. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is what the IPs did. And colloquially, she is called Shadow Development Secretary, as Andrew Mitchell is also called Development Seceretary.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Harman's own website--[6] "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister"

• BBC (one of he most read websites)--[7] "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development: Harriet Harman"

• Labour Party Webiste(!!!)--[8]--"Harriet Harman MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister"

• Guardian UK (also another most read ebsite)--[9]--"Deputy leader of the Labour party, shadow deputy prime minister and the first female solicitor general"

• Hackney Gazzette--[10]--"Harriet Harman, who is deputy leader of the Labour party, Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and Shadow Under Secretary [sic] of State for International Development"

• Wikiquote (another Wiki site)--[11]--"She is currently the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and Shadow Minister for International Development."

• LSE (renown University)--[12]--"She is also Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, a post she was elected to in 2007, and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister."

• Fresh Ideas (A Labour Party Website)--[13]--"Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister".

• Daily Mail (another most read news site)--[14]--"Hrriet Harman has quietly added the grand but ludicrous title of Shadow Deputy Prime Minister to her existing ones of Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party."

and many more. Perhaps then does Wikipedia know more than newssite and Labour Party Websites? Should these outlets be informed fo the wrong title?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those have as their source, one way or other, Harman herself. Even the Labour Party one is clearly put out by Harman. The most interesting is the Daily Mail, for which you emphasised the wrong part of the quotation. The part of not is actually: "Harman has quietly added the grand but ludicrous title of Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". So much of that is worthy of comment, but perhaps most notable are the first four words I quoted. I will grant you that Harman likes to style herself "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", but she was not given that title by Ed Miliband, so she doesn't have it. I'm happy for you that you have managed to find some sources that have picked up on her self-styling, but the only important ones are the ones Ed Miliband has put out, both of which list her as Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and nothing more. We don't put offices in the infoboxes that are simply made up by article subjects unless they are actually in a position to create offices. Miliband is in such a position; Harman is not. -Rrius (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying Wikipedia (I didn't say you although you are the only one opposing) knows more about her atual roles than credible news sites? Why not trhen you inform thme to make corrections? You pick out the Daily Mail,which many wikipedians have said is untrustworth; how about the Guardian and the BBC? And once gain, i'm not the one puting stuff in info boxes.And personally, i would like to see a primarly source by Miliband himself that says he did not give her that appointment. As you yourself mentioned or guessed, the Labour party link that i found was written by Harman herself? Do you really believe she writes the sutff on the Laobur party site? Or someone on her behalf? So where is the official statement by Ed Miliband that he did not give her that role?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paedophile Information Exchange

Why is there no mention of Harriet Harman's role at P.I.E? Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham. Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Walters and Locke were on the Executive.Twobells (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Oh I forgot, Harman also voted for reducing the age of sodomy to 16, two years below that of adulthood.Twobells (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC) It is a BLP violation to attach this to Harmen's bio, if you feel it is not and you want to insert a comment please open a thread to seek support and consensus at the WP:BLPN , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Since when is BLPN the first place to go? The proper place for the discussion is here first. -Rrius (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html Rob, I have pm'd you on your talk page for advice, thanks for the heads up.Twobells (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC) This is clearly very notable, though please be careful to keep it relevant to Harman herself. For example the Dromey information could be mentioned briefly but most of that content would belong in his article rather than here. Also I don't think your mention of sodomy is notable at all, countless MPs voted for that on equality grounds and there's no evidence most others have links to paedophiles nor sympathies for their cause.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Can I just add that there are similar discussions regarding Patricia Hewitt's involvement on this issue - DerbyBob added information to her article and also contributed to the actual article on the Paedophile_Information_Exchange though Off2riorob has reverted all the edits and believes the information on Hewitt is defamatory.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC) We have to make a decision on adding the PIE entry into the wiki record, accusations of 'defamation' have no place on wikipedia if the actual evidence is factual which it is plus 'defamation' is only relevant to the spoken word. Libel (written evidence/accusations) is only relevant to false accusations, all the above is on record. Wikipedia if it to be respected as a research tool MUST make the hard choices and not be scared of pseudo legal manipulation to prevent us from shining a light into dark corners. I noted what DerbyBob wrote about Hewitt yet I could find no entry in her entry/discussions, if it has not been deleted then I would like a link, if it has been deleted I need to know as I follow senior editors wiki behaviour checking for vested interests. As for the 'sodomy' comment I believe it is notable as it factually reflects her ideological and personal belief system in reference to her previous work with PIE; nothing at all to do with how other politicians voted or that they might be involved in paedophilia and to suggest that is well..odd and slightly suspect.Twobells (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is not going into the article under any circumstances thankyou. It is clearly a coatrack of extremely controversial detail and as such does not belong in this article or any other.Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC) The most recent write up of Harman and PIE was very well written and balance. Please do not remove it without discussion. Also to suggest such content doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia is beyond belief, the only issue is establishing exactly where such information belongs.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

editors were asked not to remove these well known facts from the entry as we had consensus, but it seems someone has, please do NOT remove again otherwise I will have the article protected and that is particularly directed at you Off2riorob. Twobells (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the above-quoted discussion from spring/summer 2010 is where this claimed concensus was established? Or somewhere else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This information breaches WP:UNDUE and it also a slur, as it implies Harman had involvement with PIE, when she only had an involvement with an organisation which may have had involvement with PIE. There is just not any chance this will be reasonable to include in a short article. DO NOT REPLACE IT WITHOUT CONSENSUS OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. Controversial information on a BLP, once challenged unless consensus rules it safe, neutral, and properly weighted (as I say, no chance here).--Scott Mac 15:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, a threat of blocking having previously reached consensus.. Harman was the legal officer who represented the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) through the NCCL full stop. I have to ask why do you seem so aggressive and defensive? We reached consensus on this issue a long time ago, the material is highly relevant and notable, not a slur but historical fact. It was removed without discussion once before, BLP's are NOT marketing brochures nor cv's so I hardly think that one paragraph factually covering her background is WP: UNDUE, I am however quite happy to work the information into the main body of the article which I believe is best practice anyway.Twobells (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. There is no consensus I can see. And this information does not go in the article at all. UNDUE means that just because something is factual, does not mean it belongs in an article. You need to show it has had significant coverage in independent sources to show that it belongs in what will be a short article about an individual who has done many many things in her career. Can you show that when other biographical sources discuss her career, that this is a significant and notable fact? Present your evidence.--Scott Mac 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]